"Science is an incredibly unreliable path." He says, whilist wearing glasses, and a vest with a zipper, into a microphone, infront of a digital camera, recording a video of which to upload onto the internet. Clowns, the whole lot of them.
An internet that required literal rocket science in many contexts, which required multiple other scientific disciplines to function, with computers that needed science to function as well. I think we can fit a few more clowns in this car folks!
@@Person-ip7iy The overlap is almost impressive, if you disregard the fact that denial of reality for one conspiracy theory will likely lead a person to all the other conspiracy theories that rely on denial of reality. For many of them, it appears all of science is made up to make people think they're insignificant so they can be controlled by the 'they', denying them their god given liberty to... do anything exactly as god (the church) tells them to and apologise for existing until the day they die and think they go to heaven so they can worship god for all eternity. Using fossil fuels found using radioisotope dating to drive their car with a GPS navigator that uses satellites and maps made from space shots of earth to get to said church is, apparently, not contradictory to all this.
Is Genesis history? Well, they are pretty much. Peter Gabriel's been a solo artist for decades, so has Steve Hackett, and Phil Collins, sadly, can't play drums any more. Wait, is this the right thread?
As a kid I had to sit through Bible readings until we were all so mentally numb we could only nod and fight against falling asleep. These kids had a blast by comparison (not that I'm bitter) >_
@@brunozeigerts6379 - LoL, At the very least 10-yr-old me would have tried for a long bathroom break, but fear of damnation might have kept the visit brief XD
Oh they do this a lot. It's classic projection. "Yet they [scientists] refuse to look at this evidence and hold on to their ignorance.. [that a Jewish god didn't create the Earth 5 thousand years ago]".
For a group of people who are commanded to be different and not "of this world" they are absolutely obsessed with not just fitting in, but being the dominant system of thought.
That was because they thought jeebs was coming back any day now to destroy that world, so there was no point in being a part of it. Since that has consistently failed to happen, they’ve decided that dominionism/integralism is what they need to do instead.
@@WS-dd8ow 2000+ years later, they're still waiting. And some are tired of waiting, so they actively seek to force His Majesty's return. Yeah, they are called "Armageddonites" and want to actively cause Armageddon. This should scare you because some of them are prominent politicians.
Of course it's history - if you mean "history" as in an obsolete cultural artifact with no relevance in modern society. You know, like zeppelins are history - or the dodo.
@@LordOfThePancakes Fallacy fallacy. Or at the very least "I made something up and attached the word 'fallacy' to it to avoid having to participate in an intellectual debate" fallacy.
I walked into the room and my spouse was watching this movie on a streaming service. I'd never heard of it. I listened for two minutes and then warned him that it was nonsense and to not take it as science. He turned it off.
@@agroquin…no? If there’s a point you’re trying to make, you’re going to have to spell it out because right now the only thing there is to say in response is a simple negative.
My parents and some of my siblings are evangelicals. And I grew up believing that. Now I'm an atheist. That being said, I don't think I was impervious to reality. I was simply misinformed and could not find easily digestable information. But I could find some atheists making terrible arguments and that strengthened my conviction. Do you, for example, know what 'no' means? I think that 80-95% don't know it. And most of them don't know that they don't know it. How about 'or' or 'fallacy'? Just really basic things people do not understand. So basically if I do not accept X, it doesn't mean I'm convinced X is false. And "A or B" sometimes includes "A and B" and sometimes not. And also fallacy fallacy (sic) is a thing.
There's a YTer whonused to go by the name AntiCitizenX, (now Philosophy Engineered) who has an excellent series on the psychology of holding beliefs - why we have them, why we cling to thenm despite evidence to the contrary, etc.. Well worth a watch.
@@lnsflare1 Also Adam & Eve: ~doesn't understand that disobeying is wrong because the knowledge of Good and Evil is in the fruit they haven't eaten yet~
@@Uldihaa You know, come to think of it, given the way God explains it "You may eat of any of these trees, except that one, it'll kill you" makes the fact that them eating from it is treated as like "The most evil thing evarrr" even weirder. It's not even "Don't eat from that tree, because I, the holy god, said so, and so it would be wrong for you to do so" because, as you noted, he withheld knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil from them. God, effectively, has to lie to Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating the fruit, because he prevented them from understanding them in the first place. ... What weird way for people to picture their god.
@@thaddeusgenhelm8979 What's interesting to me is that in all the stories of all of the gods, not a single one of these gods ever demonstrates more scientific knowledge than whoever spread/recorded them. The Greek gods still used bronze and Hephaestus never built a steam engine. FFS, they didn't even have the concept of arches for building. Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest seed. Odin knew nothing of the Americas. All the gods of Egypt and Persia said not a word about fossil fuels. None of them mentioned electricity, or any fundamental law of physics. And iirc some of them even repeated the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth. If any of them were real gods, they would have known all the above. But they were never once shown to have that knowledge.
@@thaddeusgenhelm8979 people would make more sense getting their history from Dr Suess books. Weird how we will make excuses in our heads for anything we already believe, but it's so easy to see the contradictions of other peoples beliefs. Yet we still pat ourselves on the head thinking we have it all sorted out. We are homus confidently incorrectus
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
The attack on science in this movie is mind-boggling. Movies, shows, and social media posts like this, erode (pun intended) the confidence in scientific models and make teaching science a chore. As a science teacher, I've found myself having to defend the models as much as I teach them. Add these problems to our current political climate in the states, and you have the making of a de-evolving public. Its "Idiocracy" in the making. 🤦🏻♂️
Only in some countries like the USA. The USA is not the whole world. Really enlightens the decline and the coming of a better new world order from the east. Nations are reaping what they've sown. In our case- anti-intellectualism, trembling in fear of a "demon haunted world."
I hope this makes you feel a little better... ---- As a kid, I _loved_ science classes. In spite of being raised as a Mormon, I saw the truth in evolution and planetary science. And the "magic" of Medallion squares and genetic inheritence was enthralling. ---- I was less good at chemistry. I was reading _Treblinka_ when I burned myself with a Bunsen burner in high school. The smell of my burnt skin immediately made me flash to what I read of the ovens and I passed out. ---- Another time I spilled sulphuric acid on the back of my hand right into a large scratch I had. It really hurt!!! But the non-athletic middle-aged teacher actually leaped over his counter to run to me to get my hand under water. I was dazzled by his superhero prowess! ---- Good school memories of science classes and teachers. ^_^
Quibble: atomic clocks are based on the cesium standard, not radioactive isotope decay. From Wikipedia: The caesium standard is a primary frequency standard in which the photon absorption by transitions between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium-133 atoms is used to control the output frequency. It has a frequency of exactly 9192631770 Hz. You can’t really use half-life as that kind of clock. It’s a statistical process; it’s only reliable because a lot of atoms are involved. Like… flipping a coin 4 times might give you heads every time. But flip it 1 trillion times, and you’re going to get a result very close to half a trillion for each side. And in fact, you’ll be able to tell exactly how fair that coin and toss method really are. Anyway, none of that negates the primary point: half life works fine for dating things as it is used in archeology and geology. Maybe just don’t use it to set your watch.
Yup, was going to make same point: cesium clocks work from stable frequency atomic resonances, not steady rates of atomic decay. Too random in small samples and too slow. No need to give anything away to creationist nitpickers. Otherwise, an excellent analysis of this totally flawed flood of scientific hogwash.
@@LordOfThePancakes I don’t know what atheism even has to do with anything I said. These are literally just normal verifiable facts about reality that anyone ought to be able to accept regardless of faith. They don’t contradict religion. Are you so blinded by your obsession with magical thinking that you can’t even operate in the real world? Also, that’s not a fallacy. That’s something you (or someone else) made up. Do I also fall to the argument from not believing in leprechauns and dragons and wizards and … fallacy? I mean, it’d be cool if dragons or wizards existed… but, you know… they don’t. “Argument from not believing in my fantasy fallacy!” You sound real intelligent there.
Photons from electron shells are also emitted as a stochastic process. What "makes" the Cs137 (IIRC) notable is it is a METASTABLE state, so it stays at the same for many many electron bounces between two shells, and laser light is used to pump up a higher excitation level and one of the falls is to that metastable level. If instead the decay happened quickly, the frequency would NOT be stable to so many significant fractions.
@@markhackett2302 that’s neat! Thanks for sharing. I thought I remembered they did something like the laser but I didn’t know for absolute certain. I didn’t know about the metastable state though. I just remembered that it “wiggled” back and forth at a very stable frequency. And I did know that it wasn’t just a single atom kind of thing. Reminds me a lot of my EE professor telling us about quartz crystals and how they work. Compared to other filters we could build, they had an extremely high Q which is what makes them good for watches. It’s kind of a notch pass filter rather than a band pass.
it's amazing how willfully ignorant these cultists are. I find I have no choice to assume they are simply not intelligent. As a geologist, it drives me nuts when they simply lie and it's a stupid lie.
But look how much more quickly they are able to come to conclusions, without having to actually do any science! I get ya, I’m a biochemist interested in abiogenesis. Drives me nuts too!
i dont like calling people unintelligent even if i find their beliefs and epistemology i credibly silly amd annoying. but i agree its really hard to stay nice with these types. so overconfident in their wrongness.
As a former Christian and former evolution-denier, it has little to do with intelligence. It’s indoctrination. You’re born into a community where nearly everyone believes as you do and has been fed the same misinformation. You’re told that only atheists believe evolution and they only believe it *because* they’re atheists. You’re told that atheist = immoral and evil. You’re told that Christianity is the only true religion and only the Bible is 100% reliable. By the time you finish high school, your thinking is hemmed in by thick walls that you can’t even fully perceive because you’re so used to it. A challenge to your religious assumptions is a challenge to your entire identity and worldview. It’s intensely risky. I changed my mind because (a) I am highly intelligent and can understand scientific explanations, (b) I’m curious and want to understand how things work, (c) I got to know people outside the fundagelical milieu, and (d) I suffered real religious trauma and was willing to consider alternatives. I’m still a theist (by a very loose definition), but it’s taken decades to untangle my thinking and understand what’s demonstrable fact and what is subjective experience.
My dad gave this movie to me and I bravely facepalmed my way through this. The entire time I was wondering how he could think that this would be convincing to me.
It's because they think the Grand canyon is proof of the flood just because their Bible says it happened. Not because they can actually prove the "big flood" happened, but mostly because they feel like it happened.
Not defending creationists but in short, they claimed that the global flood caused the rock to be softer and allowed the rock to be carved quickly. But I won't go into how wrong all of that is lol.
As a person who was directly involved in designing and fabricating the integrated circuits involved in Moore's Law, I have to bite my own tongue to listen to their computer BS. I actually designed and fabricated the simplest possible IC, a photodarlington, an IC with 2 transistors and 2 pins. Near the end of my career I worked on smartphone ICs with billions of transistors. Today, ICs with over 50 billion transistors are commonplace. If this shows that science is unreliable, personal computers (I designed and built my first one in 1976) and smartphones can't possibly exist.
@@lcf2366 Having stories about floods and your ancestors not being completely wiped out by the flood are two different things.A global flood would not leave any ancestors alive to pass down the stories.
@@lcf2366 Wrong. The chinese story is about a two generation long flood that caused problems in one region (not the world). The indians had a story about a water monster god attacking people because their main god was angry.
I think it's an insult to stupid people too. I mean, anyone showing it to stupid people thinks they can only take information like that, but even stupid people will understand reality when you explain it properly.
Peer pressure and empathy for the feelings of others always scared me away from telling my parents and my grandparents and all the other people I was supposed to trust what I honestly think of their religion. I really feel terrible for bearing false witness to them for all those years.
Erika's (Gutsick Gibbon) video on the Mud Problem has just been uploaded and also worth a watch. It leaves Creationists with a lot of dirt on the faces.
@@55Quirll he was one of first small debunkers I stumbled upon, found paulogia there. And still see lots of people in chats everywhere that used to frequent those late Fridays/early Saturdays.
This movie seems to keep teetering back and forth on whether or not science is a trustworthy method of understanding. Creationists will proudly proclaim that the scientific method isnt a good metric to study our world and will do everything in thier power to poke holes in our established understanding. Only to then rely on imagined dissent within the scientific community in a pathetic attempt to boost their claims.
Radiometric dating is reliable when studies on the Turin Shroud show it to be 2000 years old, but not when they don't, or when applied to rocks and fossils. Go figure.
They’re inconsistent about almost everything. They grab onto which ever argument seems useful or compelling to them in the moment, because bolstering their preferred conclusion in their own minds is the point.
Imagine how insulted they'd be if you went into their churches preaching bad theology to their preachers with the same enthusiasm that they preach bad science to scientists.
I've taken to "telling" Christians that they believe that drinking the blood of a dead god will make them immortal. It's actually closer to their theology than "you think you came from a rock" is to abiogenesis.
I'm less concerned about them teaching "bad science" to scientists than I am concerned about them teaching bad science to children. I'm old enough to remember starting the school day with a prayer and daily bible readings in class. And a teacher (grade 4 IIRC) who decided to go around the room asking us about what books we were reading on our own. In fairness she was trying to encourage us to read more but when she got to me and I said I was reading a book on evolution I was told (in so many words) to "Shut Up and Sit Down" because she didn't believe that stuff.
@@TC2020-w8u Yeah, that's the point. "You think you came from a rock" is not in any way an accurate portrayal of any theory of abiogenesis, and yet it gets trotted out with irksome frequency. Annoying, isn't it, when somebody deliberately misrepresents your position? Although answer me these: Dioes or does not the Eucharist wine represent (or in some denominations actually *become*) the Blood of Christ? Is or is not drinking it as part of a ceremony an important part of Christian worship to demonstrate faith? Does or does not Christianity promise Life Eternal for those who have faith in it? And is or is not Christ God who lived and died and went to heaven? So explain to me how believing that drinking the blood of a dead god will make you immortal is an incorrect description. (I freely admit it's reductive, I did that on purpose).
Channelling isn't observed in the strata at the GRAND effing CANYON???? ARE THESE GUYS SERIOUS??? I gotta pace myself. Only 14 minutes in and I'm already losing it.
SciStrike had a ton of fun assembling our part, I still cringe at how I sound on video (and am looking more and more like my cartoon image in real life) but still happy with how we condensed the topic for the show.
The level of sheer dishonesty and twisted language in the first few minutes of that film is so shockingly obvious, it makes you want to pull your hair out that even religious folks in the audience couldn't spot it.
I was exactly the audience for this when I used to be a Christian. I’d have taken the points they made, believed them, and thought atheists and evolutionists were too stubborn to recognize the truth. As I began a very gradual process of leaving my faith, I began to accept that people weren’t being stubborn when they didn’t believe in god. After long conversations and they’re objections, I more and more began to understand, they really don’t believe. It’s not that they’re being stubborn or obstinate, they actually in their bones, don’t believe. They’re unconvinced. Unbelief became more and more reasonable to me. And while I was still Christian, when people used to tell me atheists know in their heart there is a god, they just want to live in sin, I found that a dishonest answer. I would argue with my fellow believers, that they aren’t being stubborn or suppressing anything. They really truly don’t believe and they have very logical and rational reasons for not believing. Those reasons over time were convincing to me.
You were intellectually honest and introspective...and willing to follow where the evidence led because truth was what was important to you. Well done although it can be a difficult journey, it's a journey worth while.
@@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279 I remember as a Christian, asking atheists if they’d follow truth, wherever it leads. Of course i believed it lead to Jesus so was trying to encourage them to follow truth and arrive at Jesus. I suppose it took that seriously, and truth lead me out of Christianity. My starting point was when I got into form criticism, and textual criticism. I thought a deeper dive into that stuff will only support the truth of gods eternal word. I would say things like, obviously Jesus didn’t deny Jesus 9 separate times. Ancient storytelling was like that. I understood how they played fast and loose with Old Testament prophecy. I remember a conversion with my brother and he was frustrated and wanted to know what parts of the Bible are actually true. I remember telling him that was part of the fun of it, trying to solve the puzzle and use these criticisms to figure out what was authentic. I continued to have to refine what Christianity was as I kept losing parts of it the more I learned. Until at some point, all I had was the resurrection. And then I didn’t even have that anymore. And I remember saying “I’m an atheist.” It didn’t feel weird or anything. The process was so slow of deconversion that when I finally got there, I sort of just admitted what I had subconsciously known for a while now. I’m an atheist.
@@justinabajian1087 thanks for sharing your journey. I have not been a believer since about the age of 10 when the stories didn't make sense and my questions were never met with a satisfying answer. But I grew up in the UK and although nominally Christian I wasn't indoctrinated. My parents were believers in some type of vague Christian God but they couldn't supply any good reasons when I asked them why they believe and they no longer are. But I find it endlessly fascinating to listen to people telling me what they believe and more importantly why...as I could be wrong and I want to know the truth... but as you found the more you actually learn and question the more the religious claims evaporate. I found a wonderfully brilliant series of videos by Evid3nc3 describing his deconstruction and it was illuminating. Luckily living in the UK religion is generally regarded as a private thing and the evangelical types are rare and avoided by the average person. Having an honest discussion with someone religious is interesting but when I am told I know god exists but just want to sin (which is obviously not true and if I did know god existed and I wanted to sin I would sin and then become Christian and have my sins forgiven and get into heaven despite my sins) or that God's existence is obvious I just haven't been willing to look or let jesus in or some other guff it just proves the other person isn't even willing to entertain the idea that I have seriously looked and still find the God claim has failed to meet it's burden of proof. Sorry I went off a bit there but it's often frustrating but discussing your own journey and thoughts has been a pleasure and a breath of fresh air as it were. Best wishes.
So if science is so unreliable, I guess the man has never flown on a plane, been to a doctor, taken his car to a mechanic? Even eaten at a restaurant for that matter.
Randomness is literally a critical aspect of things like genetic algorithms and machine learning processes. Some of the most sophisticated computer programs today (e.g. ChatGPT) absolutely require randomness. Creationists stop saying randomness cannot possibly improve a computer program! It can and does!
So the largest volcanic eruption known to take place on Earth happened 65 million years ago which is around the same time A giant asteroid hit the Earth. Old Yahweh must have been really pissed off with those lizards.
There's Siberian Traps covering over twice that area in lava and causing an even worse extinction event. Rat-like and lizard-like moles must've pulled a gargantuan prank on the Almighty to deserve such harsh times.
Simple answer: no. Longer answer: _Hell NO! For the thumbnail tells me so..._ Sigh. I miss SciStrike! and Buster the pug. If there is a heaven, remember all dogs go there!
Christians need to argue this out amongst themselves. Creationism according to the Bible, is a belief that most Christians don't accept. Most Christians accept modern science, and simply give God the credit.
I discovered the existence of creationists thanks to RU-vid 15 years ago. I am still amazed that grown ass men willfully believe Noah's story, which any 5 year old can see is a (horrific) fable
I grew up in the LDS church and i had no idea that some people took everything in the scriptures literally. I never believed any of it, i went from "knowing" it was true as a small child directly to knowing it made no sense at around 10, but my impression was always that the stories weren't meant to be taken word for word
Paul I'm insulted. You had the perfect opportunity to insert one of my favorite Simpsons clips. 'Excuse me, but proactive and paradigm? Aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? Not that I’m accusing you of anything like that'. They must've said Paradigm like 20 times.
Why are there never human fossils mixed in with the dinosaurs victims of the flood, not a single one though they were contemporaneous, according to these geniuses.
I am 70-y-o. I grew up with a fundamentalist evangelical father. He was a dyed in the wool, Republican Goldwater, man from my earliest memories of politics. We used to argue about politics all through my teens and early adult years. But we never argued about religion because I considered myself a Christian also. Until my lazy self education about the truth of the Bible and Christianity, led me away. The year before my father died, when he was 93, he said to me, “you’d probably be surprised on my beliefs on the age of the universe and evolution”. It turned out he came to believe in evolution and believe that the universe was 14 billion years old. He was also a low-level amateur Greek scholar. He started his own church that I grew up in. He wrote several books about the Bible God, etc. But six months before he died he told me he no longer believed in hell. So there is hope for people like the guy in this movie-I don’t even remember his name.
*Explanations : **_God Vs. Science_** ;* It's clear that 6 days of _God magic,_ explains the complex inter dependant world we see, far better than modern science. Really ? _How's that work ?_ lol *Science gives us testable explanations, but **_religion gives us non testable stories & claims about God,_** nothing more.*
The fact that this movie did so well (relatively speaking) is a bit depressing. They used the sediment deposited by Mount St. Helens' eruption, sediment that you can literally watch being distributed in the surviving film and photography of the event, to support their claim of a global flood _and_ compared it to the Grand Canyon. And some people nod their heads and go 'Yup, gotcha atheists/old Earthers'. Anyone with even the slightest bit of critical thinking should have gotten up and left at that point. That no one did just reinforces my belief that the target audience for this were the type of student that slept through their science classes. Abel was a literal _shepherd,_ as in 'the person that watched over, cares for, and herds *sheep.* Last time I checked, sheep are _mammals._ So why aren't any mammals found in these rock layers that were supposedly deposited *after* Abel was murdered? Why don't sites like Göbekli Tepe(1) show any signs of a world-wide flood? It's a site whose organic remains buried in and around the monuments have been dated to *_9500 BCE._* Genetic mutation is chaotic(see: Chaos Theory), *not* random(again, see Chaos Theory). Mutations due to damage or replication error to the patterns of the nucleotides can cause unpredictable but not random propagation effects. Typically, one mutation isn't going to make much difference, but many insignificant mutations added together via reproduction could produce a noticeable change over time. And that last bit is where they seem to struggle with the most. They can't seem to comprehend just how big a timescale we are talking about. (1) Thanks Miniminuteman for introducing me to this site.
I guess Christians are a bit obsessed with this topic. In the world of science there is no debate about this issue and there hasn't been one in over a century. The Earth, the Sun, our solar system are very very old. Period.
1:37:12 for this I like to bring up the "mudskipper will never be an amphibian" argument. The mudskipper is a fish that is an obvious transitional form, it can breathe air temporarily at least, crawl on its fins, and its eyes are on the top of its head rather than the sides. These are all adaptations that allow it to live in very shallow water and even dry land for a short time. However, it IS still a fish, not an amphibian, and it will NEVER evolve into an amphibian, even if its fins become full on legs, even if it loses its gills and has only lungs, even if it begins to reproduce on land, it WON'T be an amphibian, because that isn't how evolution works. The amphibian is a group of animals that evolved over 600 million years ago from something that probably was a mudskipper's distant ancestor, but just like how bats are not birds, birds are not pterosaurs, and pterosaurs are not dragonflies, just because it evolves a similar body plan to something exists or existed in the past, whatever pseudo-amphibious creature that mudskipper's descendants evolve into will NOT be true amphibians because that's just how taxonomy works.
_"In six days; God built the stars and the entire universe"_ ...And after this; he needs people to do things like built arks and churches... and money to get these things done. Sounds legit
@@LukeSumIpsePatremTe why are you pretending I remotely said anything even resembling abolishing free speech? And if you imagine I said anything remotely connected to free speech, how do you even have the idea cinemas COULD abolish it? Were you trying to be as weird and wrong as possible? I was, obviously, speaking about the movie being trash (you can tell by.... that's what I said), and the cinema's lowering their standards to allow that level of garbage being shown is pathetic. I did not in any way even hint at the idea that the goverment should force cinemas to not show trashy movies because they are religious. I don't know how you managed to get such an absurd notion. "those cinemas are pathetic" doesn't even remotely resemble "free speech should be abolished".
@@nagranoth_, It's trash... but cinemas show trash _all_ the time. Why would a religious propaganda piece be treated any different from any other movie if the theater is getting paid to show it?
@@aralornwolf3140 ROFL. In the US maybe. In other countries cinemas actually have some standards. And ehm.... movie theaters have to BUY the rights to show movies, they don't normally get paid to show movies, not unless you hire the whole cinema for a private event.
Oh my goodness, I just rewatched this series on your Playlist (Last week, I think.). First, I have to rewatch Gutsick Gibbons' re-edit of her mud video. Then I will watch this again.
Being disingenuous and outright dishonest is the only way for creationists to argue against the immense quantity of actual fact science has amassed. For them, these lies are the right tool for the job.
The track argument is so dumb. Which will there be more of: things that can walk, or the number of times things have walked. If you've walked more than once in your life, you know which there are more of, which is therefore mathematically more likely.
Paulogia, took me awhile to get here! This was excellent! A little sad, though!😢 SciStrike worked at the Phoenix Museum, a few hours from me, we'd planned to meet there. A few others, too, as he was planning a video with Aron Ra. I was jazzed as I would get to meet them. He was going to the 'ark encounter' protest, I think, and was so sweet he took a big detour to pick up Lavender Lady so she could attend, as Bionic Dance couldn't, after all. I believe it was on his way home that we lost him. But this video sure showed how he knew and loved his field! Thankyou for putting this out.👍🏻💙💙💙🥰✌🏻
@@channelname99192 If they want to beleive in fantasy that's up to them. I'm not required to share that belief. You might find it awful if you want. I find it hilarious. To each their own.
As much as I appreciate these older videos, I'm glad that Paul has moved on. Debunking creation science is like shooting fish in a barrel. Paul's new focus on Christian history and philosophy is like shooting fish in a kiddie pool. Much more entertaining.
The people who wrote the Bible never knew there were 2 places on the Earth that would be in perpetual day and perpetual night for months out of the year. A God who created the Earth would have known that and included it in his fan fiction.
Yes indeed. _(hypocrisy in action)_ It's perplexing how a theist could look at the great complexity of life, and simply declare that it requires an immensely complex creator. *Then turn around and declare, that their **_"most complex creator"_** gets a pass from this rule, because they say so.* Wow
I have to mention this whenever the “one small change will cause software to catastrophically fail” and “software can’t come about from random changes” argument comes out. Sorry, no on both counts. First, most software bugs don’t cause crashes, they tend to be annoyances that you can often work around, such that the software continues to be useful. Inferior software often wins in the marketplace because, like in nature, “fitness” is determined by the environment more than some Platonic ideal. Second, computer scientists have successfully written software using random mutations of code. All they had to do was introduce replication and a selection mechanism. The thing creationists leave out in their analogy is that software is typically generated by humans, not by reproduction with random modification and selection.
1:35:07 that's a horrid analogy, modern windows 11 is built over decades of smaller code changes starting from the NT kernel to the point we have it today. And you can see a bunch of vestigial bits in it, like the old settings dialogs which are the fall backs you get once you dig deep enough in the control panel, those are mostly unchanged from their earliest appearances. Same with the linux kernel it's also a product of many smaller changes getting applied to the code base. In this case you can even inspect each and every one of them because the entire history of the kernel is public. also they clearly never heard of evolutionary algorithms where the process is exactly that, randomly mutate some data which is part of an evaluation and then give it a score, do that multiple times and always keep the best scoring examples.
Exactly. My eyes rolled down my back when he touted his outdated "computer knowledge," from the 80s. My final project was exactly that, I evolved CA reservoir computing reservoirs and evolved pools of networks to play a mario bros clone. Anyone who denies the fact of evolution by natural selection is either incredibly ignorant and autodeceptive, or plain malicious.
I think that creationists are all too happy to lie, thanks to their Jesus-Jerking... By which, I mean - If it were just the Old Testament in question, then "Yes," the whole "Thou shall not lie/ present false witness" thing would (ideally) guide their behaviour. But since they have an imaginary friend in Jesus, they can say "Once saved, always saved!" Or other things like "Salvation comes from faith, not from deeds," which would allow them free reign in their deeds... They could lie to their heart's content and still believe that they're doing the right thing...
PAULLLLL i live in between missoula and spokane!!! thats so crazy i literally am jumping up and down im so excited to hear my backyard being talked about by the field i love so much. I personally love love love studying the missoula flood, spokanes flooding, the glacial recessiona and the movement of the indegenous people and the amanita mushrooms across the continent as the floods happened, and mt st helens! this video is so fricken sick!:))))
@@Paulogia i live up in little old aspestos ridden Libby, montana. ive heard about mt st helens my whole life, this area inbetween spokane and missoula is the best forest ever! lol no offense to CA
It's truly fascinating how the whole movie is about 'proving that the Bible is right' and yet each and every single claim is either backed up by *Cue Jingle* 'Because the Bible Told Me So!' , Logical Fallacies, and 'Just trust me bro.'
1:17:50 Not to give them too much credit, but I’m pretty sure he said “Darwin’s hopes” not “Darwin’s hoax”, which correlates with Darwin’s view that the state of the fossil record in 1850(ish) could be (at the time maybe not unjustly) used to attack his theory. Happily we’ve significantly improved the fossil record since then. Probably best not to give them an easy “ha ha, they didn’t even listen properly and were just waiting to pounce on any imagined error” criticism
@@mariomario1462 You haven't heard that joke/parable? I can't remember where I first heard it. Probably the Christians. It stinks of apologetics. The dude's on the roof of his house as a flood is rising. A boat comes along and offers to save him. He says "No thanks. My god will save me." yadda yadda...
For some reason these people cannot wrap their brains around the fact that YOU CANNOT PROVE the bible by referencing THE BIBLE!!! 😂😂😂😂😂 lmfao my goodness!!!!
