Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Creationist Arguments 

Thank you so much! Our supporters on Patreon truly are what makes content like this possible. We are so thankful for all that you do for us! www.patreon.com/clintsreptiles

​@@lhamaseveramenteirritada9760 I can't afford it sadly :/

@@lhamaseveramenteirritada9760 Well, another way to look at it is as not just paying real money to watch a video but that you're donating money to a channel to help support them to continue to make awesome videos. The extra Patreon videos are a bonus or a thank-you-for-the-support gift. At least that's one way to see it! That's kind of how I see it, anyway. If you spend real money to see a one-time movie, or to watch a TV show, how is that any different? Hell, this is cheaper than both of those things, and you get far more of the videos than you do for a movie, comparing by cost. Anyway. That said... if it's not for you, it's not for you, that's cool. But I know others have actually commented in the past on a similar comment I made saying they finally decided to go for it after my comment, so it seems to be worth saying this for others on the fence.

@@ankhelsvery well said

​@@lhamaseveramenteirritada9760fair

Yup. Birds evolved during the Jurassic. So back in the creteceous, we had already modern birds flying around with primitive birds, bird like dinosaurs and dinosaur like birds and whatnot. And we have fossils of all of them. There's no clear CUT that divides birds from dinosaurs. They are the same thing.

trust me. this is exactly the way they think at answers in genesis. even tho they have a biologist who i think probably knows about evolution. but she just lies for her paycheck

“If white Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?”

Its like saying, “how come english people still exist if america came from them”

That’s pretty much like saying that hawks couldn’t have evolved from birds because they prey upon other species of birds like pigeons. 😂 As Clint mentioned: similarly to how triceratops and T. rex were both different species of dinosaur, birds and those theropods that preyed upon them were at the time just different species of theropod dinosaur.

If they read your comment they're going to think it's a good argument and use it in the future. And I will laugh.

They weren't allowed to watch/play Pokémon, they typically think it is evil. I used to be one of them. I watch videos like Clint's to learn all the things I wasn't allowed to learn growing up. I also enjoy Pokémon.

The funny thing is that Pokémon leans more into religion than evolution. Arceus is essentially God of the Pokémon universe universe, and the father of the deities of time and space Dialga and Palkia. Then there's Giratina, which is treated as the devil of the trio.

​@samarnadra How about you try thinking for yourself instead of letting others tell you what to think....... Neither theory can ever be proven. But one has a lot more holes in it than the other. You decide which one. For me, there is just too much evidence to support an intelligent creator than there is for everything we see being brought on by mere chance.

​@@user-ph1qr9yl6h If they are to think for themselves instead of letting others tell them what they think, then I am sure that they will not listen to you. They sound firm in their decision and are not changing. Neither do I believe in a creator either.

@@user-ph1qr9yl6hthere aren’t two theories. One critical criteria of creating a Theorie is, that a Theorie must be able to be falsified. There is always the possibility to find evidence that falsifies the evolution theory (however it’s extremely unlikely, which is why the theory is highly agreed to be true), but there will never be evidence that there is no god. But if you think about it, how many gods are there? If you Cristian, there is one. If you are Islamic, there is one. If you are Nordic, there are several, if you are Ancient Roman or Ancient Greek, there are several, if you are Buddhist, there are non. So, which believe is right? You can only base this decision on your subjective believes. In Science, there is evidence all over the globe and scientist from all around the world independently come to the same results. Or they prove theory’s to be wrong. However they work with evidence. Therefore, and that’s my conclusion here, you can’t really compare a religion to science, except you are searching for an easy solution to a complex problem.

this comment is underrated

Medieval/Renaissance europeans, eating embalmed and powdered corpses: "Modern problems require (not-so-)modern solutions."

Not ancestors, but every day we are eating our great-great(-great)*a bajillion-uncles/aunts/nieces/nephews, if we're merely counting the number of generations since we last shared a common ancestor.

You could always eat your descendants instead of your ancestors. They'd probably be nutritious. Just be like Cronus.

Okay I gotta say that I laughed pretty hard at that

L'rrr had some good logic there

Maybe they're saving them for Sweeps?

Finally! Someone talking sense! Oh wait, you're being sarcastic

Shark siblings frfr

Dawkins did a good job of explaining this

wait till he finds out that most of his diet (well the meat part that is) is other mammals

​@@daftwulli6145bro's a pescetarian

Or a black widow spider who mates with her lovely partner, then eats it. Or a male grizzly bear who eats it's own fluffy babies. Or sharks, alligators, tigers, seals, chimps, and of course, humans.

So is the king cobra , what of it besides it seems the appropriate food for a snake considering its shape .

​@@DoctorZisINAgain what of it , it's called cannibalism .

Which is why YEC isn't logical. Even as a Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God, I look around at the universe God created and it TESTIFIES it is old, and animals evolved over time. Can't deny evidence in your face

*These Hater of GOD DeMonics MAKE ME SICK!!!!!* *He Kicked Out His Wife, so Swine couLd Have a Guy instead!!!* *Swine is a Joe Biden DeMonicRat !!!! BUT->* *Although I Hate ALL DeMonicRats, I have No Choice, but to Vote ALL DeMonicRats-->* *=> Again Ukraine, TRUMP, the LIES & the Environment!!!!* *Justin. James. Martyr (AT) G .c | Eugene, Oregon | March 7, 2024*

Commonality in DNA does not necessarily mean common ancestry.

@@opalthefox3955we do have evolved apes. The animals you called apes are not the same as the common ancestor that humans and other apes have. They have all evolved from that common ancestor.

​@tribefanjames We are apes. We all evolved from the same ancestors. Humans are classified as great apes along with gorillas and orangutans and chimpanzees, etc.

If you follow the primate line all the way back to the beginning ... it's still a primate .

Yes, this is why they don't use these arguments in direct debates with evolutionary scientists - because they will be blown out of the water.

But cDesign Proponentists often lose fights against their (inert) straw golems.

Straw man arguments are incredibly effective against the uneducated and ignorant because they view everything as binary.

Well, they really only "work" if the third party is too ignorant to fact check.

@@TheBestAround131 right, so they will work most of the time. The point isn’t to convince scientists or academics or people with knowledge of the philosophy and practice of science - the point is to get as many people as possible to buy into their grift and give them money and/or allegiance. They don’t care about the truth, only influence and money, and they’re not picky about who they get that from.

No,falcons and hawks are dinosaurs😂

I am a creationist and a Christian, but I believe that birds are dinosaurs and macro evolution that is Gods design

It is not odd, if they are dumb. It would be odd, if they were smart.

@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 I’m a creationist, but I know birds are dinosaurs, I’m not stupid.

@@GatorBoyCL kinda

@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 Exactly correct, and they're not dumb, so yes, it's odd.

My two cats have watched this with me and also *strongly* disagree with that hypothesis as well. Lions have only managed to domesticate some animal keepers in zoos. House cats, on the other hands, were able to domesticate civilians all over the place and forced us to create so many companies to get their favourite food supplies in countless different flavours.

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta I have a dog. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I'm an old soul and have loved dogs ever since wolves domesticated man. My dog has a cat. He loves it and it loves him. They both "act" like they love me, but I suspect it's because I feed them.

@@MichaelJonesC-4-7 Aha! Now it comes down to the old question, are dogs better in domesticating their owners or cats? I don't know the answer, but I think we can agree on the fact, both are much more successful in that matter than lions or wolves, can't we? (Why can't I see my first comment you answered to? Has YT swallowed it?)

@@Spielkalb-von-Sparta I don't think the answer lies in whether dogs or cats are better at domesticating humans. It lies within the variations in human nature. Or the vicissitudes of individuals, which are not easily transferable to generalizations or classifications. I see all of your comments. Try refreshing the page or restarting your system. ; )

@@MichaelJonesC-4-7*vicissitudes of individuals* - I've learned a new word for improving my non-native language, thanks! But this vicissitudes of individuals goes both ways, I daresay dogs _and_ cats have their own respective ways to choose which human is more apt to provide them with an environment to their needs and wishes. Interesting though that two of those chose _you_ to conduct an elaborate experiment to find out if you're able to fit to both of cat and dog demands. Seemingly it works to their satisfaction, I'm happy for them. (Now I see my previous comment as well)

Yep, or a mammal eating a smaller mammal. These people are s t u p i d!

A shark eating salmon

@@tonyzed6831what the video didn’t tell you was the time given for bird evolution and the dating of the fossil. Big, big information not given right?

Fishes are actually further apart evolutionary to the degree that it doesn't make sense to call them all fishes, like one fish being closer related to mammals than to another type of fish

As a wise man once said: "There's always a bigger fish."

As a mother, I want to take a course taught by Clint.

As a father. Me too

Instead it is young earth creationists who are doing that.

As a koala, I'm eating my eucalyptus leaves.

“As a mother my take holds more weight somehow” That’s how statements like that read to me.

For real, not that long ago, I was in Bible class talking about Georges Lemaître and Gregor Mendel. I learned about evolution, natural selection, and artificial selection on Catholic school. That was on the freaking 90s.

Unfortunately even some catholics reject evolution theory. Michael Behe is the most famous one.

That's the irritating thing about Creationism: you don't need to be an atheist to believe in evolution, being christian(or religious in any other way ) and trusting science are not self excluding things. Why is that so hard to get for those people?

@@Eisenwulf666 I have no idea.

Exactly. I realized that religion & science can not only coexist - but even complete each other - when I was still a wee lad. I can't get why it's so difficult for many people to just accept that religion and science don't have to clash

it's not an opinion. it is a denial of fact. and by this point, any adult that still argues against evolution brings ridicule on themselves. if a person chooses ignorance they deserve what comes to them

Except these movements aren’t just opinions. They want evolution taken out of schools and to teach creationism. Cults gonna cult

With all gods, things are possible.

Exactly. I'm from the bible belt. 100% of the arguments I've been exposed to were made in bad faith, either a deliberate misinterpretation of scientific evidence (the example of the intro in this video) or a vague citation of the Bible that's not really in the Bible (Satan buried the bones to test our faith).

I am terribly disappointed that he has chosen to use his platform to sell this scientific snake oil. I can't support this in good conscience, so I am unsubscribing.

False

@@lovesign7882 my brother in Satan, you're the one chugging snake oil here

@@lovesign7882bruh what were you doing subbed to a paleontology channel to begin with? Did you just cover your ears every time he said a date more than 10 thousand years ago?

Indeed. It sounds like total horse-leavings.

They sure love their "and everybody clapped" stories, to the point that a major religious film franchise is based entirely upon them.

The daughter's name? Albert Einstein.

@@DrachenGothik666 “horse-leavings” is a genius term!

With some embellishment and a not-very-informed museum guide, something like this could have happened. I can't really expect Hovind to report it accurately though.

I think you are correct on all points. I believe they were trying to say that those burials were very very unlikely to happen that quickly. The funny thing that they can't see, is that yeah, they're right. It is incredibly unlikely, that's why we only have a few examples from billions of years of activity and not a lot of examples. I think the core misunderstanding is that they don't understand the enormity of time billions of years is really hard to wrap your head around. So while these events are unlikely, there is so much time that it would be unlikely for them NOT to have happened a few times.

Creationists do believe in evolution within KINDS so birds evolving into other birds is not a contradiction for them either. Its the cross-species progress form dinosaur to bird they are arguing against. So, they would not exclude a pigeon turning into a hawk because that is still bird kind- but they do claim that a pigeon will never mutate into a mammal or lizard or fish etc. Creationists don't help themselves by making so many disengenuous claims that are easily proven, but this particular question they are putting a bit more thought into.

I took it as being a part of the 'If people evolved from monkey, why is there still monkey' or 'if dog evolved from wolf, why is there still wolf', so 'If the therapod became bird, how were therapods still around to eat birds'. Though the other persons reply about it being 'related kinds' based is another good idea as to what was explained.

​@@the_secret_arts I can see them thinking that if they weren’t aware of the many similar features that many of the non-avian theropods shared with modern birds like feathers otherwise they’re basically insinuating something similar to what I pointed out lol 😂

Chimpanzees eat monkeys so according to these people that would make them not primates.

That is a very good way to present this to Creationists- if they follow the biology they may begin to accept theropods evolved into birds, but they will then just say theropods are just also "Bird Kind" and maintain their main argument that "Kinds don't evolve into other kinds" and we are back to the start a again- but I do think we are getting closer to finding definitive physical evidence that inter-special evolution can happen (or not), but neither evolution or creation has quite found a perfect example to either prove or disprove the inter-species debate- but it may turn out both sides (at least the best minds on both sides) are now just arguing about names, labels and technicalities rather than the process of biology.@@brfisher1123

Wow, this is an amazing comment! Thank you so much for sharing your experience and for taking the time to write such an encouraging message.

@@ClintsReptiles It's the very least this video deserves. ☺

Compliments from this staunch atheist.

Thanks for sharing. I had a similar experience a few years ago through psychology. The pastors of my church were using what I now know to be pop psychology to try to pigeon hole my wife into the special category of "broken". One of them had a doctorate in ministry, and was well respected by our church for his scholarship and knowledge of the Bible. Fortunately I was finishing up my bachelor's in psychology, learning how social scientists actually conduct empirical studies; I realized that those guys, despite their expertise in ministry, really had no idea what they were talking about when it came to psychology. Then is dawned on me to ask: How many other fields do pastors completely bastardize in the defense of Christianity? I found that being an expert in one field does NOT make you an expert in any other field, and to be wary of those who claim authority in areas that are well beyond their wheelhouse.

yeah but, maybe every scientist across all physical disciplines is involved in an elaborate conspiracry to lie about their own professions so they can sleep in on sundays and have cocaine orgies? Prove me wrong!

Complete with him quoting his child daughter saying words that no child ever says. It was such an obvious attempt to insinuate that people who believe in science are less intelligent than children who don't.

He makes up a lot of stuff... I was unfortunately shown his videos as fact... Well I realised at a certain age he was pulling information from the Void between his ears...😅

Think lower down Johann, we used to call that being rectally derived or rectal derivation, in other words, he’s pulling it straight out of his ass

He deserves a "didn't happen" award

Yup: in today’s episode of “Conversation That Never Happened”…

If you can't argue your opponents points at least as well as they can how can you ever say your argument is the best after all! Steel manning is wonderful and I wish everyone understood its use.

Dear Atheists, Can you prove Creation is wrong, on a single Science fact? Show us your experiments and findings, you do have some right? Or do you just Believe, whatever you were told to think? You’re just like the old woman, who swallowed a fly and has to keep swallowing bigger and bigger lies, unto Death. The Emperor’s new clothes fooled you and now you’re just following along, like the children of Hamlin, following the Pied Piper. With Magical Evolution, you’ve got no explanation, for Gaining, New Genetic information, Beneficial mutations, or anything at all whatsoever. And you certainly won’t Gain, Eternal Life through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ = Gain Gain Gain, or WinWinWin! Magical Evolution and Atheism = LoseLoseLose! Don’t be a Fool! Get Jesus Coverage NOW! Tomorrow maybe too late and you can’t say you weren’t warned on Judgement day. Micro Evolution is Horizontal Evolution, aka Diversity. Within, Chromosome Family Kinds of animals. Magical Macro Evolution, is Vertical Evolution. Between the different, Chromosome Family Kinds of animals. Smaller Horizontal steps don’t and can’t, add up to giant Vertical Leaps. That’s the self debunking Fallacy, of Magical Evolution. Checkmate Primates! Get your Jesus Coverage NOW! Tomorrow maybe too late.

Clint is a genius! ==========================

And this is precisely why I don't think AIG are arguing in good faith. I don't think they're trying to win over non-creationists, because strawman arguments won't do this. I think they're trying to keep their flock in line; for what purpose, I don't know. They might believe in a higher purpose, or they might just want to keep their theme park in business. It's impossible to know.

Pretty common in debating, how you know who is good at debating.

Can we just talk about how kind and well thought-out this comment is? Some faith in humanity has been restored. 😎✊

I suppose that’s why all of those things include the word “Theory” and IMO the word Theory means nothing more than “My best guess”.

Your personal definition of a word doesn’t change the definition of Scientific Theory that everybody else uses.

It isn't a question of science OR religion, it's a question of fraud and defrauding their followers AND the US government (Churches don't pay tax). None of those guys even believe any of that nonsense, and neither does it even exist outside of the US Deep South. It's almost as if carpetbagging never stopped.

​@@markb6978 i won't add what exactly this reminds me of to avoid getting too serious here... but man, this is so true.

The Dunning-Krueger Effect.

I can debunk evolution w/ one question: is the COVID virus NATURAL or MAN-MADE? Have fun!

​@@chrisgraham2904Precisely! And It's dangerous.

@@dead.inside.585 Exactly . Sometimes it happens because of lack of information, but it can also happen with misinformation and wrong theories can enter in and lead other misinformed/uninformed people in the wrong direction .

Imagine believing something that isn’t even observable. This belief helped Hitler justify his racism towards blacks. Evolution is vile, evil and is not demonstrable. You cannot take small observations and then extrapolate them to say that fish evolved into humans over billions of years. This is similar to me observing that my 3foot tall child grows 1 inch every year and then concluding that she must be 9 feet tall in 72 years. That’s nonsensical. There are LIMITATIONS to the change we observe. Any statistician would laugh at such an extreme extrapolation of data.

Then they'd have to acknowledge that their book is wrong.

There's quite a few members of the cloth out there that have discovered lying is a great deal more lucrative than being a good Christian

young earth creationists have a world view base off God’s word. Evolutionists have a world view base off man’s word.

@wolfboy55xbox3 Young Earth Creationists have a world view based on whatever literal interpretation of their holy book they prefer. People who accept evolution have a world view based on scientifically supported evidence. Fixed it for you... BTW, if a god did exist, it wouldn't change the fact that populations evolve, that the fossil record exists, and that life shares common ancestry. So that would be God's word, because we didn't make it up.

@@hylaherping9180 how do you know that’s your mind that’s evolve by random chance is actually looking at the evidence correct.

I'd love to see them! Please keep me in the loop.

@@ClintsReptiles Thanks! Will do!

*These Hater of GOD DeMonics MAKE ME SICK!!!!! BUT=>* *Although I Hate ALL DeMonicRats, I have No Choice, but to Vote ALL DeMonicRats-->* *=> Again Ukraine, TRUMP, the LIES & the Environment!!!!* *Justin. James. Martyr (AT) G .c | Eugene, Oregon | March 7, 2024*

Good , then maybe you can start by doing a video with James tour . Michael Behee , Stephen Meyers or any of the hundreds of Phds that have come out against pseudoscience of evolution publically .

@@johnathanmiller3033 oh that's really cool, I didn't realize that they had peer-reviewed papers which demonstrate that intelligent design is a better explanation of the evidence then evolution. Could you please point me towards those peer-reviewed papers? Because the only thing I can find is the books that they have published that are not peer-reviewed and are for profit. But maybe I've overlooked something. Would you mind providing me with those papers?

Agreed. I’m not really religious, but I heard something a while back that made me think different about creation theory. God is all powerful, right? When he made Adam and Eve, were they babies or many years old and fully grown? So why can’t both be correct; that God made the Earth 4,000 years ago, and he made it with billions of years of history and detailed evolving lifeforms and fossilised evidence? I reckon God is an evolution hobbyist at heart hahaha 👍

@@dustenekoes28 Simpler than putting billions of years of history into a planet that's much younger: Ask yourself if a "day" to God is truly the same as a "day" to humans? Probably not. Also, the Bible math determining how many single-thousand years old Earth is is based on a passage with lineage that only mentions the important people. It skips a lot.

@@dustenekoes28Because there’s absolutely no point or positive outcome from building a gigantic “theme park” universe. Even the most powerful being or force possible in the universe has better things to do.

@@DoctorShocktor But if God is all powerful, he could do all that and literally everything else in the universe in an instant, too. The real answer to the question is “why not?” But again, I’m not part of any religion, just sharing a good point that made me think a little differently 👌

​@@dustenekoes28Why stop there? What if you're a god, and we're all your creations. You created the universe so you could find out what it would be like to be mortal. You don't know this because your last act was to erase your own mind. When you die (or rather wake up), all of us will cease to exist, and you'll have a good laugh about it all. Or maybe I'm a god, you're my creation, and I decided to keep it hidden from you. Or maybe some other god created us both. And that god made you and I gods, but we don't know it yet. These things might be fun to think about, but none of them are falsifiable, so they aren't scientific. Or even good arguments.

YEa it is kinda hillarious how they fully admit that something being a religious worldview means it lacks credibility without realizing the irony of that statement

Also, since I've kinda bashed the YCE side in this, I may as well take a small swing at the scientific side (the one I lean more towards personally). Why are some of us so adamantly against the idea of God that they ridicule the religious? Of course, I don't know anyone who has found absolute concrete evidence of the existence of a God, or even an afterlife. That said, though, completely ruling it out kind of defeats the entire purpose of science: To learn about the world. God, in this hypothetical, could be seen as something like a cryptid. Something that no one can really prove does or doesn't exist. And since no one really has any proof determining either answer... it could just be left up in the air. And ultimately, as long as a belief in God isn't hurting or hindering a person or those around them in some meaningful way, I think that's perfectly okay.

sciece is not the world view they're claiming, its pantheistic evolution creationists are talking about. science is observation and testing. evolution is a theory. thats why they talk about it like that

I personally lean towards apologetic theism, and Clint's approach is *exactly* how we can create discussions that are not loaded with condescension and disrespect right from the get-go.

@@frederikl.1642if it’s alright to ask, what is “apologetic theism?” Is that related to apologetics, or are you trying to say sorry for something? 😂 /hj

@@awkwardukulele6077 It's the form of faith related to apologetics 😅 but both "apologetics" and "apologize" share some distantly related linguistic meaning.

Funny thing is they are skeptical when it comes to changing their beliefs, but not skeptical enough to understand how dumb they are in the first place.

Facts! It shocks me how little research they do. If I don’t know the answer to something, I look it up. They seem to think of a “got yah” question and don’t even try to find the answer.

I think it might be important to analyze not just these peoples arguments, but the function of them. Are these people really trying to increase their understanding of the world around them? Are they genuinely curious, or are they just doing whatever they can to confirm their own beliefs and attack things they believe are in conflict with them?

He coming from how he sees the world and is trying to argue for it, rather than looking at the evidence to see how the world really works. That’s what all creationists do.

Exactly. It comes from a feeling which is the opposite of curiosity. They want to prove that the world is what they “know” it to be, and any evidence that they don’t immediately understand or that doesn’t fit into their worldview is threatening to them for some reason. I know a lot of religious people who are able to incorporate ideas about evolution into their religion, like science is not at odds with religion. I wonder what it is about these kinds of people that makes them so opposed to it

@@baneofbanes You know in 20 years I have never seen a creationist make a real argument against what evolultion is really saying. ALL OF THEM first misrepresent evolution and then argue against that misrepresentation. I think that is clear evidence they KNOW they cannot argue against the real science. Otherwise you wouild at least occasionally see a creationist point toward something that is really what science says and argue why they think it is wrong.

Non avian dinosaurs didn’t go extinct when birds first evolved. Non avian dinosaurs and birds coexisted for more than 100 million years before non avian dinosaurs ultimately went extinct. A better analogy would be if you and the rest of your family lived along side each other for most of your life before at some point a disaster killed your family with you as the only survivor.

no the argument is that because they claimed they did not live together, once we know they did., one more fallacy to evolution theory

​@@ronniemillsapfortunately they don't know much about how evolution works, also it's not a theory it's a fact, treating evolution and creationism as theories is like comparing a paleontologist to a kid who loves dinosaurs

You're not wrong but this is a false equivalency. You and your family are still the same species.

originally it was the evolutionists saying they couldnt exist at the same time because of the fossile record, the people who made this video talk to that perspective. and they proved it wrong

What Evolutionists Believe. A Very Very Very Brief Account. There was nothing, no thing From nothing, came an explosion, from the explosion that came from nothing came everything This explosion, that came from nothing, contained everything including time After some time, the time that came from the explosion of everything that came from nothing, came galaxies, stars, planets and moons. All the materials needed (the periodic table) for stars, planets and life came from the explosion of everything that came from nothing, as did time. Now in a certain location of space, that came from nothing is a certain planet, that was perfectly the right size and right distance from the sun, it had the perfect sized moon that too was perfectly placed in an orbit around this peculiar planet, that came from nothing. Interesting to note here, the universe of everything, that came from nothing operates with the sophistication and timing of a Rolex watch, also interesting to note is the manifestation of the "Fibonacci sequence" in both organic matter on earth as well as the spiral of a galaxy (incidentally from nothing.) After some time, that came from nothing, on a planet that came from nothing, that had all the elements required for life, that came from nothing, arose a "primordial soup." From this amazing soup, came an unknown cell that for some unbeknown reason replicated. Life came from nothing. After some time, well, quite a lot if time, this cell became, a trilobite in both male and female form. What they ate, nobody knows? How did they know they needed to eat, nobody knows? How did they have the time to evolve the bone/muscle structures to eat, the digestive and waste system without dying of starvation, nobody knows? The relationship between proteins, RNA bad DNA mysteriously appeared too Then, they felt that they needed to become fish, both male and female realised this at precisely the same time! They then went on land, both male and female. Now this raises questions, what did they eat? They simultaneously became amphibians! (This happened instantaneously so as to avoid asphyxiation. How did they know there was food on land to eat? How did they know they were equipped to eat the find they did not know was there? How did they know of all the vegetation that was there, what was good/bad to eat? How did the food get there in the 1st place? How did vegetation form? How did photosynthesis evolve? How did they pollinate without a pollinator? How did seed bearing seed to its own kind evolve? How did the none living seed know it needed to fall into the none living soil to germinate? They then, after some time, that came from nothing and for no reason both male and female decided to become birds, reptiles and mammals! Oh yeh, and two mammals (male and female) went back into the sea, this is how we get whales! Now after some time, that came from nothing, in a universe that came from nothing, with mathematical precisions and numeric sequences that came from nothing, in a galaxy that came from nothing, in a solar system that came from nothing, on a planet that came from nothing, from a goo that came from nothing, living creatures that came from non living inanimate matter arose a creature called humans, both male and female, that came from nothing. And all this is accepted as fact without 1 shred of evidence. In other words, everything came from nothing, let’s take a closer look 0-0=0 0+0=0 0X0=0 0/0=0 0%0=0 Because out of nothing, comes nothing (that’s a scientific fact) The word science means the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Now let’s see if evolution meets the above criteria? The universe came from nothing? Does not fit criteria. The contents of the universe (time/space/matter) appearing with no cause? Does not fit criteria The universal laws? Does fit not criteria Primordial soup? Does not fit criteria The arising of a cell from soup? Does not fit criteria Life coming from none life? Does not fit criteria Transitional fossils? Does not fit criteria Nothing has ever been observed as causing anything to come into existence And evolutionists accuse those who accept ID as the only viable answer to life as, Deluded Dumb Brainwashed Mad Insane That a belief in ID is the same as the belief of unicorns, leprechauns flying horses and ghosts! The evolutionist has blind faith on blind chance The universe came from nothing = magic! Life came from none life = miracle! All creatures/plants evolved from 1 cell from goo with no/zero/nada transitional fossils = mystery! Evolution has its own trinity! Evolution, the fastest evolving elephant in the room.

That was me for several years.

I was afraid of my belief system crashing down. Non-deterministic Christianity requires sin before death. I had to keep telling myself that reality exists regardless of my beliefs.

@@Weirdomanification that is tough. That’s is the reason I never go personal level when I argue about science and beliefs. Everyone has their struggles. But I really hope that everything worked out for you.

Which of the 10,000 gods?

slap it on a t-shirt, i'll buy it lol

How can ‘he’ ‘invent’ science??

@@Mogs403 it was her way of joking to make the point that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. I can't speak for her beyond that as she passed away.

​@@Mogs403 If you believe God created the earth and everything in it, he created it in a way in which it works. The study of the way things work is science. So, by that, God created the science we study. We have become entrenched in a false dichotomy that science and religion can not coexist. There are scholars who look into how the two can mutually exist. I'm teaching a class at my church on this topic. But when you look at the topic, it is important to examine all potential views on the relationship between science and religion, not just the ones you agree with. Just for reference, I am a Christian and a chemist. I do see science and religion as compatible.

@@Mogs403 The most remarkable scientists behind the birth of modern science, such as Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur all believed in the genuine planning which can be observed in nature. ”Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” - General Scholium to the Principia (Isaac Newton) In the book Real Scientists, Real Faith twenty of today's top scientists, explain why they are believers. As Einstein wrote: "A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views." (Einstein)

Well. If a person squints hard enough, he can be made to see anything. If it’s comforting to you to believe that a spirit “created” the natural world, go ahead. Nothing scientific verifies that feeling. Robert Sapulsky explains very easily why theists create mythology: they have to.

A great point, well made... and now I also want pudding

​@@octoBadger did you get pudding?

So much pudding @@XKathXgames

Yeah I was very confused with that too 😂

@@octoBadgeryay

"We need more people encouraging kids from all religious backgrounds to think objectively, and feel confident pursuing scientific careers!" - That's fine, although I recommend seeking Lord Jesus instead of religions. No religion can save, not even Christianity - only Lord Jesus saves.

Christianity was the default in the uk. Sunday school, covenanters, bible club, scripture union. By 12 years old I was fed up with teachers telling me the opposite of what the church was. So I left the church (obviously). great decision. My quest for knowledge and truth far outweighed my need for an imaginary friend to worship. c'mon: - 5 loaves and 2 fish. - An Ark with every species on (all no-doubt snuggled up like friends). - Stone tablets (a guy goes into the mountains for months, comes back with stone tablets, says "god gave them to me") - Earth-centric universe - 6 days to create the heavens and earth including flora and fauna. Yeah, sounded as plausible to me at 12yo as it does now. Riddle me this? is "Christian Scientist" an oxymoron, or another way of saying "fence-sitter".

@@DJ-Eye It is neither. In most cases a person's career and their personal religious beliefs are completely separate. This is widely accepted across many scientific fields, including my own (pharmaceutical sciences) but not in evolutionary biology. I hope that people like Clint can help to change that for future generations of young scientists.

@@clara7517 Interesting point, but how would that apply to a geologist who knows the age of the earth approximately, but has to kid himself that I'll skip that bit about the six days of creation. Cherry picking facts, does not intelligent make.

@@DJ-Eye Science is objective and based upon observable evidence. It is very important for any scientist to be able to

Thank you so much for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful and encouraging comment.

quite so! Darwin trained as a clergyman and Mendel was a monk. I am an atheist myself, but the vulgar "new atheist" notion that religious or spiritual discourse is so toxic that it will "pollute" the intellect irretrievably is countered by the example of these giants of scientific knowledge, who somehow managed to escape degradation and come up with some really useful scientific theory.

Its sad that so many people pass the first hurdle of believing into the young earth creation because of overwhelming evidence against it but they fail to pass the hurdle of creationism, meaning they still believe in creation, just more earlier in the past...

if you like but people can believe anything they want, ignore any evidence they want, you're not gonna end superstition and ignorance

That’s fair. However, I have heard for a long time that many of my fellow Christians think that there is an innate competition between “faith” and “science“. As if they are in opposition with each other. I do not feel this way at all. My faith is based on things that cannot be measured by science, but God also gave us these huge brains (through the process of evolution) to learn about the world around us. Because of my faith, everything I learn about science always makes me wonder more at the marvel that is the God that I believe in. I want to share this with my fellow believers, and nonbelievers alike…. Because it’s awesome. 😉

​@@destryallgood3681 "Evolution" is contradictory to Genesis. Genesis tells that God created everything perfect so that there was no death or suffering. "Evolution" equals death and suffering. And of course, while there now is death and suffering there is no evolution. Evolution would need unforeseen new genes to the existing species but there are no such new genes. Instead, there is speciation that occurs through gene loss. We can observe that in the speciation process natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution.

Thank you. That was really important to me. I find that kind of a tone to be off-putting. It is just candy for people that already agree with you.

Just cause you're on the fence doesn't mean that creationist arguments are both scientifically incorrect but also logically incoherent. If you take that as a negative tone than that's on you

Big agree. I was actually thinking about how much I admire the sentiment of this video. It really is such a shining example of how (despite what the current social/political/religious climate would have you believe) you can truly respectfully disagree with people whose viewpoints are fundamentally opposed to yours.

Dumb ideas should be criticized. I've seen so many creationist ridicule scientific facts because they (quite obviously) simply don't know what they're talking about. Criticism doesn't have to be taken negatively.

If a "condescending tone" turns you away from facts, you need to ground yourself more in logic and less in emotion when it comes to stuff like this. Evolution isn't faith or belief, it is just fact.

It's also very possible that the museum story is made up as well. I have a hard time believing a museum guide would "convert" immediately based off the flimsy story.

@@bsears85 oh I agree

I've seen creationists present tales like this in comic book form. Truly. There's one where an evolutionary biologist is doing biology 101, some kid shows up with the usual creationist claptrap and by the third panel the scientist/educator is sweating bricks because he knows "the gig is up" and he's about to be exposed by the heroic 19 year old who read a few creationists tracts. The fact that this is presented as a cartoon ought to put people on their guard that it is a wishful thinking fantasy. In real life, there was at least one evolutionary biology class the began brutally enough, that actually warned creationists types to drop the class. They said, "if you believe in creationism now, by the end of the term you won't." That's how these things really go.

Agreed. I’m sure some natural history museum guides could be tripped up by a young patron who repeatedly asks questions. Makes sense that creationist ministers would be looking for ways to proselytize. About the age of fossils, it is possible that a museum guide would not know the difference between sedimentary rocks (where the fossils are) and molten rock which has cooled called igneous rock, or volcanic ash. Essentially it is the igneous rock/volcanic ash which has radioactive isotopes such as uranium-238 and uranium-235. When layers of radioactive isotopes are above and below a layer of sedimentary rock, those isotopes can give the age of the fossils.

@@curious968 I was a young earth creationist before I took biology. Now I'm a theistic evolutionist. Still a Christian, but I no longer think the earth was created in 6 literal days

"How can birds be birds when birds eat birds?"

You are what you eat

Me,also watching a documentary: a falcon is eating a pigeon...thinking to myself: a falcon is not a bird,it's a dino. You learn something every day.

I always wondered why they dont seem to think that it is offensive towards god to directly reject the results of studying his creation. If anything, that the only first-hand information we have that comes directly from him.

"#why some religious ppl don't accept scientific consensus that is backed by overwhelming evidence" - We should first get that "overwhelming" evidence.

God is omnipotent. God can make round planets, percieve billions of years as a week, create a microbe that would be the ancestor of all life, and so on.@@jounisuninen

​@@HOLDENPOPEnot true. God cannot change his mind. Because if God is omniscient then God knows he is going to change is mind and so it is not really a change of mind. So if God is omniscient, then God has no free will. God knows what will happen and is forced to live out what he knows will happen.

@@psibert ...you do know you just said a common argument against God's existence, right? The exact opposite of an argument for Flat Earth? (Since believing in Flat Earth requires believing in some sort of religion, though the inverse is not true) Like dude, no, the Earth is not fucking flat. All observation points to it being round, and adding an omnipotent being that could have made it round from the very fucking beginning only destroys the idea more.

I appreciate this, but creatures like Ham & Hovind deserve no respect at all.

@@teleriferchnyfain and I would caution clint against engaging with those two, else he too will turn into the snide, sarcastic, dismissive debunker that the OP complains about

Exactly. The classic, condescending “debunking” videos are entertainment first and education second. The vast majority of people who watch those videos are only watching in order to validate their own beliefs or laugh at another group of people they deem as “stupid”. It’s videos like this that ACTUALLY educate people and change minds.

You are asking a great question.

You are WAY ahead of us, Danny. We don't know how to measure "genetic information." Tell us, in detail, how to do that and we'll take a stab. Have a blessed day.

You can find many videos like this, but shorter, in Clint Explains channel.

Never mind them praying to a white, blonde, blue-eyed, 1st Century middle-eastern man

Christians do admit that christanity is a religion, though.

History and science are two separate disciplines. And Jesus was a jew. Not white.

@@cjcarrizo42reminds me of some Austrian guy…Rudolf, was it? Something like that

​@@theoriginalhowardhoMaybe I'm dumb, but aren't Jews a religion, and white a colour? I can imagine people being both. Maybe white is used as some synonym here though I don't know of.

5:23 Oh! Lol. I like the way he thinks.

The typical response from creationists is to separate micro evolution (admitting it exists) and macro evolution (denying it exists). Which is ignorant, since the only difference between the two is time. Convenient for them since they're relying on a young Earth to support their views.

@@libertyprime9307 You are wrong for several reasons. First, time is not the only difference. Time is ASSUMED to be the only difference. Time (the age of the earth) is the thing that is in question. To appeal to time as a solution to the problem of evolution is begging the question. Second, it is true that we can observe organism's systems adapt. That is not in question. However, to then say that the same system that results in adaptation must therefore also result in entirely new information, new systems, and new body plans over long periods of time (time which is in question) is just fallacious reasoning. That does not follow. Third, Young earth creationists don't use the age of the earth to refute evolution. The argument young earth creationists make is if the earth is young, the evidence should support that. Then they present evidence that they think supports a young earth. It's the exact same argument that evolutionist and old earth believers use. No one was around to witness any of these events. Both groups of people are making inferences to the best explanation. They just differ on their best explanation. Remember, the presupposition that the earth was old and that evolution takes long periods of time predates the ability to measure the earth's age (though I would question whether or not age can be objectively measured in a lab). Fourth, just taking this gentleman's first point, he is begging the question. He assumes that the earth is old when he assumes the coexistence of birds and dinosaurs for 80 millions years from the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. The person making the video would reject that interpretation of the evidence. Fifth, you have to remember that the story of past macro-evolution is just that, a story. It's an attempt to piece together an unknown story from the evidence that's available. You can listen to this gentleman tell his story in real time: "Is it impossible to change a dinosaur into a bird? I certainly see no evidence that it is." The gentleman that made the video that's being commented on (and many prominent evolutionary biologists regardless of their religious convictions) think it is impossible. The Royal Society had a convention in 2016 that addressed this very thing. Gerd Müller said although "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” If you think macro-evolution is an open and shut case, I'm sorry, you're just not caught up. It's far from open and shut. The story of how systems and structures arise through time is only a story.

​@@TheAaronYost You're gonna lose your mind when you learn about transitional fossils and carbon dating.

@@euglenaluvrApparently you didn't read my comment. Transitional forms don't help you. Not only are they very few and very far between, but transitional forms are highly disputed. They also don't show long gradual change over long periods of time, they show abrupt change. It's a comparison of complete organisms with complete functional body plans. It has never been observed that random mutation and natural selection can produce entirely new body plans. Transitional forms also assume an old Earth. You're assuming the very thing that's in question, which is question begging. Carbon 14 dating doesn't help you either. The formula for carbon dating has four variables, two of which are assumed. You give me a formula where I can assume two of the variables and I can give you any answer you want. Not to mention the mere existence of carbon 14 poses a major challenge for people who think the Earth is billions of years old, especially when we find carbon In diamonds and dinosaur bones. Of course, for the secular scientist there has to be some mechanism by which carbon enters and exits closed systems like dinosaur bones and diamonds, but can't enter a closed system like a dead organism. The entire thing is a story based on fallacious reasoning.

@@euglenaluvr two questions. Which transitional forms and what makes them transitional? And what is the formula for carbon 14 dating and can you explain where are the values assigned it to the variables come from?

And that must take incredible self-discipline...every creationist statement he showed here is pure face-palm.

It is always important to not get complacent. Even though evolution in broad conceptual terms may be scientifically undeniable, treating all criticism of it with disdain is counterproductive, because it stops us from scrutinizing the small stuff which very well *could* be wrong. Classic examples include stuff like the dismissal of punctuated equilibrium, or assumptions that a missing link between two species simply happened not to leave any discovered fossils, when in actuality those species weren't closely related at all and their similarities were from convergent evolution.

​@@tudornaconecinii3609that is the scientific method. So yeah, hard agree. In science, there are no truths, just what we think might be the closest approximation to truth so far.

@@tudornaconecinii3609to be honest my understanding of punctuated equilibrium is that the theory is highly scrutinized because it assumes deviation always leads to speciation, which we have seen is not the case. Although I’m not entirely caught up on it. Phylogenetic gradualism or even punctuated gradualism seem more akin to what is observable over a wide range of organisms. That said it’s good to not be immediately dismissive and condescending about theories not our own. It’s a delicate balance of wanting to learn and critically assess the theories you subscribe to, while not wanting to make theories that are significantly flawed or otherwise unlikely to seem more credible than they are.

Wow, that means a lot. Thank you for taking the time to give me this really encouraging feedback and to support us creating more content of this nature in the future.

I mean, technically …

​​@@crow-dont-knowWell...even more technically ape and monkey aren't the same

Arguing with a monkey can actually be amusing and cute. Arguing with a creationist can make you lose hope in humanity. Just reading the 'arguments' from creationists in this comments section is proof enough of that

​@@Emelefpi" And God sent them a strong delusion to believe a lie so they'd be dammed because they have no love of the truth " , that's the likes of you to a tee .

Yeah... yeah. A lot of the YEC clips showed off very weak arguments, I feel, but that one made me cringe even as I heard it. And that's coming from my own side!

My theory, they conflate (on purpose often enough) what "information" is. They assume that all information can be analogous missing the critical point that information depends heavily on what topic you are referring to. Like dipstick hovind talking about skateboards exploding into cars...like no you dimwit a man made object is not comparable to a natural one. A blade of grass wasn't designed, not by man at any rate or God either.

It really depends how you define information. I would say being the larger animal, a lion has more information simply by the total cellular mass of its body.

​@@libertyprime9307 That's a pretty weird way to define "information."

@@stickiedmin6508 Oh it's not the definition. Just saying that if we include some definition which counts something like cells/molecules as information, well a larger animal has many more of those.

Careful though, that’s gestation, not evolution. The fossil record is evidence enough.

@@AMC2283 Yes but it answers the question. One cell becomes something far more complex in only 150 days.

@@AMC2283 "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - to some extent.

genetically it starts as a goat and ends as a goat, its never a non-goat.

@@jaysmithers2225I told him to be careful