The Ark and the Darkness DESTROYS Atheism?! 

All these people sound like a bunch of children telling their favorite fantasy story.

Why do apologists / creationist keep using the word "evidences"? Especially since they have been corrected so many times. There is no plural, it's just evidence. They could say pieces of evidence, or lines of evidence. There are other options, but for some reason they keep insisting on using the word "evidences". Is it some kind of code or signal call, for fundamentalist Christians? IDK.

So basically the only true carnivore woke up one Thursday and decided that he was sick of those icky grapes. But boy, that gazelle sure looked tasty. Then he told his girlfriends to go grab him one. Sounds reasonable to me.

Funny how God only physically acts in ways that are present in nature and observable by humans.

Not a single seminary university teaches that there is historical “evidences” of Genesis or The Flood. You only get this from pastors who create their own theology post graduation and promulgate it within their denominations, even if they insist they are independent of any denomination.

The ark had one window tons of methane, and open fires I think it would have been more like a bomb .

Apologists ask these simple "what if" questions like a 5th grader asks questions thinking they are disrupting hundreds of years of sceince. And they just move on thinking just asking the what if question actually decided that since other options are possible the science is wrong.

No ships today are made entirely of wood, which is, coincidentally, the only floating building material available in the Bible times (bronze age). So we improved on God's design?

Irrelevant to the video but your hair looks cool

I think the Ark pitching straight up or down would be a serious problem for living beings inside? Who gets crushed? Just about everything save the top layer. He put his model in his swimming pool and look how cool, but that's without living creatures inside. These folks grasp at any straw.

I find it hard to believe that 40% of Americans are creationists. That seems too high but I grew up in the Midwest where non-evangelical Lutheranism is more common than evangelicalism. I might be wrong but I think creationism is tied to a more strict christianity. I appreciate your reactions. Good to see you!

Odd that he didn't provide evidence for his magical sky daddy, just like he had none.

We live nearly 100 years now, and there are nine billion of us humans on the planet. Where is the evidence is there of the billions of people during Noah's time.

48:15 More lies. Aron Ra interviewed Sweitzer. They mischaracterized what she found, and then drew ridiculously erroneous conclusions.

Honestly, these people should either come to their senses or they should just claim "it was all magic! And, my god made it _look_ like nothing ever happened 🤷‍♂"

Im an athiest and I love Demon insignias and the Bad Evil Demon Aesthetic and the Pentagram Flag incited a little satanic panic within anyways

One simple question. How did Noah cut and mill the timber necessary to build the Ark before the Bronze Age or Iron Age? I calculated that the hull would require 300,000 board foot of timber, not counting decks, if we use 12" wide boards. You would need about a 1,000 double length logs at a minimum. That would be an impossible task for Noah and his sons. So absurd. It's an obvious myth, using older Mesopotamian flood myths. They are actually delusional.

18:54 The replica Ark that Answers In Genesis made is reinforced with rebar and concrete blocks all over the place because it can’t even support its own weight with wood and pitch. 😆 😂 Plus the scientist using a scale model to test structural strength is equally laughable. RC model airplanes, while to scale, have vastly different capabilities than their real world counterparts. They do not scale at all.

God destroyed all humans because they were evil,(BUT) Why keep the devil and demons alive .hm .A GOD OF LOVE. HA HA HA .

termites and woodpeckers were flown by helicopter to parts unknown

Why did they bring up Jurassic Park? It's a fictional movie, creationists.

Truth destroys all fantasies! Nice work.

As soon as someone uses the word "evidences" I know I'm in for a stream of ignorant nonsense. They think it will make them sound "academic" but it only makes them sound foolish.

Glad to see you back, it's been a while. Excellent video! It is a textbook example on how the Christian faith is in desperate need of liars to keep it going.

I guess it's convenient for them that the Bible says "Lean not on your own understnading," because if we did, claims like this fall apart pretty easily.Exploiting ignorance and using fancy, authoritative sounding language is all they have and it's hollow.

Lol I graduated from Liberty University.

The more they try to explain it, the stupider the whole thing sounds.

Thanks for the warning. I'm glad I didn't play a logical falacy drinking game while watching this. It was literally more than one per minute. No serious scientist would quote Jurassic Park as a source. No offense to Spielberg.

A cube would just roll and everything would die? Have you heard of a gyroscope? They laugh at a design you could actually make work.

10:07 Kent Hovind and Ken Ham will tell you Pandas and Koalas have sharp teeth. 🙄

"Inescapably _plausible_ " - cheesy smile - I RIPed 😵

@57:25 Those aren't language isolates, those are proto-languages. An isolate is a language with no demonstrable genetic relationship to another language. A proto-language is an ancestral language which we have no direct evidence of, but has been reconstructed thanks to evidence from its descendants. Also, Latin is a language, not a family. The family Latin spawned is called "Romance." It's an easy slip of the tongue to make, but that's the kind of thing that should've been corrected in the scripting process long before the narrator read that line out loud. @57:54 I don't know what languages the narrator is referring to when he says "many of the earliest languages" trace back to Mesopotamia. The only language I know of which *probably* originated in Mesopotamia is Sumerian. Akkadian and Aramaic (which also thrived in the region) are Afroasiatic languages, whose point of origin is debated with no consensus at this time. I don't think Mesopotamia is one of the origins that've been proposed, but I could be wrong. I'll grant it for the sake of argument. How do *two* languages qualify as "many?" Sure, the Afroasiatic family is huge, but that still leaves Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Kra-Dai, Austroasiatic, Uto-Aztecan, Algonquian, Athabascan, and many, many others with origin points very far away from Mesopotamia. So, my takeaway is that the people who wrote the script are imprecise in their explanations for things and are lazy in the proofreading process. If I'm being kind. A less charitable interpretation would be that they have a weak grasp of the subject they're pretending to educate others about. Either way, it's irresponsible to be releasing a movie and calling it a "documentary" when this the level of care they've put into the details.

Hey! The other day I was watching some sort of paranormal cryptid unsolved missing person mystery type video. I can’t remember for sure. Probably Bigfoot. Anyway, it was an older documentary and the narrator actually said “evidences”! 😆 Ha! I thought of you. 😉 And now I know I must believe Bigfoot is real.

Sadly "evidences" is a word, it just sounds stupid, and "evidence" can also apply to more than one item. "There is plenty of evidence" is preferable to "there are plenty of evidences"

Instructions unclear, dying of alcohol poisoning

Will you be doing livestreams?

Humans and dinosaurs only live 65 mlions years ago and humanity beenroundapprox200 K so the ark with dinosaurs and impossibility.

"Inescapably plausible". I'm gonna start using that.

Heck yea cotton eye joe

Imagine being on a boat that rotated 90⁰. Everything on it would be crushed by everything else. Anything more that a few degrees would result in massive categories.

What makes me sick is that these people all make huge incomes talking about absolute nonsense.

Good to see you.

NONONO! Not 40 days and nights! That's how long it rained! They needed enough food for a year!

Yet he chucked a tantrum and killed all his creation marine creatures included who cannot survive the salinity and water temperature changes.No reason except insane anger will kill all the species on earth.Just because could not control his anger management problems.

I love the fact that when talking about genetic mixing they skip over the genetic mixing that happened between homo sapiens and neanderthals.

I'm not sure at all that science contains the supposition that there is no God. The only supposition regarding God in science as I understand it, is that science deals with the physical world and God is not something science can answer questions about.

Whatever terms you use, species, kinds, etc, sufficient creatures needed to be taken to generate every creature we now see.

40 days/nights was just how long it rained. They were on the ark for like a year.

And if a the ark tipped more than a few degrees on any axis it will shake up its contents. At 45 degrees the contents would slam towards the lower end. At 75 degrees the contents would be seriously battered and broken... and much of it probably dead.

16:20 There are so many different avenues to take when debunking the flood story. But when I hear this one about genealogy I think of my own family. We can trace our ancestry back to the 1100s in England, and but for one missing link we can likely trace back to the 500s. Plenty of other families, especially famous ones like royal families, can go back further. That takes us back to when the Romans left Britain. With the Romans we have genealogies going back another 700-800 years, which brings us to the ancient Greeks. We're now in the 500-300 BCE range, which overlaps with the ancient Egyptian Late Kingdom, where we can pick up the uninterrupted genealogy of the pharaohs, going back to around 3000 BCE. We have continuous records, going back 5000 years. And guess what. In the midst of all that, about 4500 years ago, we have _no breaks._ We don't see ALL those family lines die out. We don't see any evidence that these civilizations instantly died out. I can just never get used to old men in neckties babbling about fairy tales as if they're true. 18:38 More lies, and seemingly from someone who knows what he's talking about. The Ark is an impossible structure to build in wood. It wouldn't have been a nice little wooden box built of solid components. Structurally there are many serious issues that would have caused it to fail. The simplest and biggest problem is that it was not described as a ship, capable of navigating. It was described as an "Ark", which is a box that contains precious items. It was a box. That's all. As apologists and they'll tell you it only had to float. It didn't have to navigate. They think this lets them off the hook for all the problems that come with navigating. But in fact it creates an impossible problem. Being unable to navigate the Ark is unable to approach waves that come at it from the side. These are the dangerous ones. Ships always point their prows toward the wave and ride over the crest, because being hit from the side can roll the ship. The Ark would have been rolling a lot, wreaking havoc on the life inside as well as the structure of the box itself. This is just one of many structural problems with the Ark. This is just more lies from people who know what they are talking about.

Great to see you back! 2:33 Yes, yes and yes! It's such a relief to hear someone say it so clearly. What we know through science STARTS with observations of natural phenomena, NOT presuppositions based on books written by very fallible and often highly ignorant people (and I didn't say stupid, just ignorant of the nature of physical reality), who pass off their words as "inspired by God" in order to gain authority. When Naturalists first started researching systematically and scientifically questions such as the age of the Earth, many came from religious backgrounds and were even priests. 5:53 This is just an outright lie. "... a conscious rejection of the flood and the Biblical chronology". No, these scientists (who were mostly theists) were simply looking objectively at the evidence they found in nature.

The flood in the story lasted about a year. The rain was 40 days and nights.

Floods happen all the time in areas that aren't near an ocean, what are they on about?

The bible say's a lot of things ;-)

Thanks, London. You rock!

Polystrate is a legit geology term. It was not invented by creationists.

Thanks London!

I did enjoy it!

London Storm returns with new hair and new body jewelry!

Great video! Can imagine watching that "documentary" multiple times was painful...

If God is all-powerful, who couldn't he just FIX the corrupt people?

If you pay attention to the Bible, and it’s basically giving you the schematics of a box, that’s what the arc was a box

The ark didn't need just 40 days and nights worth of food, that was just how long it rained. They didn't get back to dry land for a YEAR.

Bloody hell! I go a couple months without watching your vids, and you look completely different. Hope you're well my dude

How do you destroy a non belief???

Thanks man! great video! Till the next one!

Imagine if everyone in a town suddenly could only speak to a small potion of of the population. I'm pretty sure that would stay in history. "My wife and I woke up near the tower one day, and couldn't understand our neigbours. So we moved somewhere diffrent and start inbreeding again"

Yay! You're back.

That image at the beginning is the dumbest thing I've ever seen ?

What song did you use at 28:37?