Join this channel to get access to perks: / @aronra If you like what I do, please consider supporting my efforts. PATREON► / aronra PAYPAL► www.paypal.me/...
I find it more depressing many of our fellow humans make comforting, not demonstrable beliefs/feelings more important to them than plain facts... and very few will change that belief due to new information...
Creationists shares another trait with flerfs. They rely on local observations of reality. When you look out your window the Earth appears flat. When you see animals give birth then they "bring forth after their own kind". But when you go to another country or dig up a fossil then your local observation fails to explain reality. They basically start off with, "Don't you believe what you see?" and switch to "Don't trust your own eyes! That's the devil/NASA/scary boogeyman trying to deceive you!"
I don't think they understand what a model is. They're thinking more like "Show me the picture of your idea of what it looks like" rather than an explanatory framework. Which may explain why we do get some flerfers claiming to present their model when they tell us how they don't accept demonstrated facts.
@@BaronVonQuiply Many of those fools have tryed to explaing things that happen on the globe Earth on their flat Earth "models", but the problem they encountered is that they can only explain one thing at a time, but NEVER all we see in the spherical Earth at the same time, 'cause it's impossible in their absurd models. And that is why most flat Earthers have mutated into globe deniers. They knew they were dead in the water trying to explain how their model work, so now they're just fact deniers. They're useless oxygen thieves, just like creationists.
Oh it is more like that they do not want to comprehend 4 plus 4 fully on purpose out of pretend, as it would mean it is linked to humans are animals and there may not be any magic soul and no afterlife for them. As they also do not think a mouse caught by a cat goes to heaven. It is like someone who is 70 years old is way too afraid to count to 70 as the number reminds him too much about his own age and that he is mortal and that most of his existence passed by. So he uses for dailyday tasks only small numbers.
Why do I keep watching these videos? They are all so alike, giving natural explanations for natural phenomena. Not to mention, very educational. Three thumbs up 👍
I like that 3.7 billion years isn't enough time for evolution but 4000 years is and they way kind means different things depending on what animals your looking at
The YEC's 4400 years is just about long enough for there to have been around 220 generations of elephant-kind, yet within a matter of minutes after the ark landed seven different species of mastodon were busy fossilising in North America and four more species of mammoth were caught in the Eurasian permafrost. Maybe that initial generation had Dumbo ears and flew all around the span of the Arctic Circle.
@@RichWoods23 Maybe that initial generation had Dumbo ears and flew all around the span of the Arctic Circle. Hadn't you heard that animals were distributed around the world by being blasted on suborbital paths by volcanoes? How they landed I've never seen clarified. Not to mention breathing at the edge of space and surviving near vacuum in general. I'm not joking I have seen that claimed.
@@matthewgagnon9426 It is alot of time compared to our life spans, but even the evolutionary process would take way way more time. A book by Barrow and Tipler calculated the chance of many of the things that would need to happen for evolution to occur of just humans and its way beyond 3.7 billion years.
I saw a creationist saying that if we could prove evolution as true beyond any doubt he still wouldn't believe it. The thought of the bible being wrong thus his faith is wrong is terrifying to him. AronRa the job ahead is a long one indeed.
I had one say something similar to me, that if he saw evolution happening he still wouldn't accept it. He then went on to say that if evolution is true then life has no meaning and is not worth living.
I was raised religious and I can't grasp that _"But the bible is TRUE!"_ mindset anymore I'm reminded of the quote about how a mind, once expanded, can never be pushed back into it's former smaller state.
Aron, before starting to the video i wanted to thank you for teaching me about phylogeny and cladistics, you really started my journey and now i'm studying biology at university
Good luck studying biology at university as your start your educational journey. Additionally I would suggest that you broaden your field of study to include courses in Biochemistry, Physical Anthropology and Geology as these fields will provide a structural framework for some of your courses in biology.
Only advice I'll give after briefly studying biology at the University of Warwick (before _both_ of the big scandals about that place) is to attend every lecture you can, prioritising the ones you _know_ are for modules in the course you're taking. You'd think they'd tell you at the start of the year which modules' exams you're going to have to pass at the end of it, but that apparently slipped their minds in my case. There was a mathematics undergrad in one of our virus replication mechanisms lectures once, quite by accident. He said it was the most interesting lecture he'd had all year.
And then there are the individual diets that each species have. The carnivores need meat to survive, and you can't feed them the other animals onboard without making them go extinct. And how would there be enough plant material to feed all of the herbivores, especially the large herbivores like elephants? And what about the species that only eat one specific type of food, like koalas? Koalas eat only eucalyptus leaves, and their brains are so simple that they can't recognize those leaves when they're not on a tree. So if you try to place a pile of leaves in front of them, they won't eat them and end up starving to death.
If only creationists clicked on this vid with an open mind, ready to learn something new...instead of just thinking, "Maybe I can find some quirky loophole that allows for my tribal god concept to possibly real!"
Just appreciate that some wake up coming across these sorts of vids, articles etc.; and that some people, who’ve woken up from the slumber on their own, have information available to them to learn from, even if caught up in some religious environment 🤘☹️🖤☮️
@kaudsiz ❤️. My response was too sardonic. If someone has never been shown the curtain to look behind, they can't be blamed for believing in the wizard.
@@mdug7224 It’s not always that “haven’t been shown” is enough. Religious indoctrination can also function in a way where it “captures” the conscious mind, to the point where an awakening would cause the floodgates to burst, which sometimes happens, regardless of whether an individual is ready, or not. If you combine that with trauma, caused by the abusiveness of religious indoctrination, then this can overwhelm the individual. In some cases people who take themselves out of it will just fall deeper into mumbo-jumbo, whilst others will start the process of recovery and proper education. Some will never be able to accept, nor recognize, real science etc and will stay within the magic circle of tautology🤷♂️
Funny how since evolution is the logical conclusion to the fact of descent with modification, creationists just have to keep granting it's true bit by bit. It went from "i believe in adaptation" to "i believe in micro evolution" to "ok everything about evolution is real but i can still call things 'kinds' and define kinds the way i like the best with zero things to back it up other than my feelings about it and then you can't really say I'm wrong can you?"
"Even a 5-year old can tell." So you're admitting straight up that your "kinds" are founded on pre-school level thinking. It's all "doggy", "horsey", "birdy". Yeah, as if we didn't know that already.
the deception that some Christians play with 'kinds' only works in English. For example, if you translate 'kinds' into Dutch, you get 'soorten', which is the classification 'species' or animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
I guess a creationist could still argue that the modern definition of "species" is different. Also what should be important is the word used in the original text.
@@patu8010 "min" in Hebrew can also be translated as "species" as well as "kind". The Hebrews certainly did not think lions and domestic cats belonged to the same "kind" as creationists do.
@@blindwatchmaker2345 in het geval van Amerika is het meer dan semantisch. met Christen Nationalisme groeiende, en de strukturele ontkenning van wetenschap ten favure van de Bijbel als enige waarheid. die meer dan bovenmatig zijn weg vind in de politiek. kun je het niet simpele semantiek noemen. het toont de bereidwilligheid aan, 'blind' te zijn voor de waarheid.
The ark is even more stupid when you realize that "Breath of Life" also means marine animals. I remember asking "what about the fish?" and the answer I got was "everything that wasn't on the ark die" So that lead to "There was an a few aquarium on the ark?" with the simple answer yes
For me the most depressing thing is people ranting that YHWH can make wings and put them on anything he likes... without ever noticing that vertebrates have developed 3 distinct wings all of which are variations of the tetrapod 'hand' and none of which match each other. If YWHW can freely swap parts and such... why do Bats, Birds and Pterosaurs all have different wings?!
I think from one of Aron's videos recently there's a newly discovered fourth style of tetrapod wing, found in some primitive avian dinosaurs. Might really just be an avian variant where the fingers haven't fully fused yet. Pretty cool though.
@@mdug7224 despite their aquatic lifestyle and resemblance to marine animals such as seals and sea lions. Penguins are classified as birds due to their physical characteristics, which include wings, feathers, a beak, and a warm-blooded metabolism. fish are poikilotherms penguins are not,
The people who wrote the Bible didn't know about 99.99% of the animals, plants and insects on this planet, let alone bacteria and viruses. They had a very simplistic view of animals and plants. Anything that flew was a bird. Anything that swam in the ocean was a fish. Trouble is, we just can't get people to give that up. Even people who should know better.
They also don't know the limits of wooden hulls as demonstrated by various large ships (smaller than the ark) which couldn't survive minutes of a major storm let alone months even with powered pumps.
You mean the people who wrote the Bible didn't know anything about - animals, plants, insects etc. etc. - wow but they really knew how to build - pyramids - civilizations - literature - astronomy etc. etc. - wow - you're right they must have been a very very simplistic in their thoughts and very stupid - weren't they? But I guess they weren't as dumb as you are hey Mr. intellectual - want to ask you a question can you explain to me - what was the cause of the Big Bang? Awaiting your answer genius
Humans had modified many plant and animal species through selective breeding before humans developed cities and writing. Thus one of the principles of evolutionary biology was being exploited during the paleolithic era of human history.
Wow - you mean to tell me that, a RU-vid video has changed all your perspective of understanding? No wonder America is so dumb down if you are going by evolution for the true meaning of life - then you are lost in some twilight zone movie my friend the only true meaning of life - is with God if you want to prove to me your evolution, because you had seen a RU-vid video - then please answer a question for me okay can you explain to me - how did the Big Bang come about?
Can we just appreciate how awesome it is to hear Aronra speak. Your informative you got a very soothing voice. I know this isn't in relationship to the video so to speak but honestly thank you. I find listening to you just very easy and enjoyable. Keep up the awesome work :)
According to Ray Comfort, a kind can range from the level of a subspecies to that of a motherfucking domain! I can't recall what his example was for a kind that corresponded to a taxonomic subspecies, maybe domestic dogs, but there is this one video where he tells a biologist "But it's still a bacteria", bc he doesn't know that Bacteria is an entire domain of different species, much like Archaea and Eukaryota. Yes Ray, we, chimpanzees, spiders, sponges, fungi, corpse flowers, and algae are still eukaryotes! In another video, he refers to the class of birds as the "bird kind". So, can we take that as an admission from Ray that all birds are related, including all those extinct theropods Ray would consider to be birds?
My little brother understood taxonomy, evolution and common ancestry at 5 we played a game where u pick a animal and other take rounds of yes or no questions until they feel ready to guess, trough watching the other 2 players he quickly understood what was a vertebrate, a tetrapod a mamal a primate and that asking about the traits defyning those grups was the best way to win
Immensely grateful to Aron Ra for providing complex topics in an understandable manner. You've helped me a lot in my deconversion from delusion. Love from India.
You missed out the various insect species starting with around 350,000 species of beetle! Creationists don’t seem to be able to understand that the tree of life as seen in many books and posters is an incredibly over simplified, over summarised version of the full thing, which is immense! Science makes nature awesome!
@@Gandhi_Physique Any cat bigger than a housecat is asking for trouble lol. I therefore agree. When I was a kid we had a Siamese cat bigger than my normal sized beagle. It would go about 1/2 a mile hunt and kill rabbits and carry them home to eat them. Never harmed a human though.
Was he a young earth creationist or an old earth creationist? IIRC at the time there had been enough geological findings that the young Earth had been disproved. But I might be wrong.
@@antonioscendrategattico2302 He became a non-Creationist, so it doesn't matter. And the geologic column was discovered and described by another Creationist whose findings cured them. As was Darwin: Creationist to non-Creationist through his findings.
"I argue with believers every day..." Dude, that's fucking tiring... especially when they aren't even honest in their questioning or intent. It's just so sad. Thanks for your patience. Have a magically enchanted day.
The Ark was solved in the 90s. The animals where obviously just stored in Poke Balls. That solves the food and the space problem. Ancient Poke Balls where a thing, you can see evidence in the show with your own eyes.
People before the flood didn't have testicles. The leftover pokeballs were turned into testicles by God to show his greatness and benevolence. All glory to God!
"Super accelerated hyper caffeinated turbocharged and viagravated electro mega evolution on steroid" Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of poetry?
Clint, from Clint's reptiles, just did a video about creationists, and explained the definition a "kind" in that video pretty well. He also disproved that definition in that video, but I thought it was interesting.
Please continue to educate us all. It's refreshing to get unbiased science based facts. If only you could get the likes of Kent Hovind and his ilk to listen, they might just learn something.
"Kind" is to Biology, as "Spiritual" is to religiosity. They are relatively undefined gap words that can be used in almost any circumstance. They seem to be words that take the place of the argument "You can't prove that it's Not"
In all my time on the internet I have never talked to an HONEST person who didn't accept the fact of Evolution. Some of them pretended to question it, but it soon became clear that they weren't interested in actual answers, and they all turned out to be liars.
"but it soon became clear that they weren't interested in actual answers, and they all turned out to be liars" "gods-believers" Favorite hobby... Pretend to listen, but actually just be waiting to promote their fan club...
You really ought to check out when I used Kent Hovind's test against Kent Hovind, playing "three of these things belong together". I offered a porcupine, a hedgehog, an echidna, and a dolphin, and his kid in the audience said that the dolphin was the odd one out. I offered a snake, a caecilian, an earthworm, and a camel, and the camel was the odd one out. Finally I offered an elephant, a pine tree, a morel mushroom, and a suzuki motorcycle, and the kid in the audience agreed that elephants and pine trees and mushrooms were all in the same kind. Hovind was angry at me.
But the most important questions are.. "What is the unladen airspeed velocity of an Old World Sparrow?" and "Could an Old World Sparrow carry a coconut?"
Aron does such an excellent job at this stuff! I mean, yeah, it sucks that it must be explained over and over in 2024, sure. But Aron is definitely the best one to do it!
Belief only requires belief. If there is evidence that contradicts that belief then there are really only two choices. 1. Never learn about the evidence. 2. Lie about the evidence. Creationists would like the former to happen but are forced to go with option 2.
The distinction between species and kind is only possible in the English language. In other languages, noticeably in the original Hebrew, they are the same. Therefore it is not biblical.
There will be only Micro Evolution as long as there is a creationist willing and able to carry the goal post! It's a tough job, but someone has to do it! God surely isn't gonna do it himself!
When I pointed out to a "Ken Ham" type of theist that he was relying on logical fallacies, he responded by saying that logical fallacies are o.k. when they are used to justify belief in his god.
I think when the biblical authors said Kind. They were literally referring to “hey that thing looks different than that thing.” It’s only apologists who don’t know how to fit it into our modern understanding of taxonomy. When you read the Bible at face value with no bias or presuppositions, plus you think about the ancient near East culture they’re in, it makes so much sense. Here are a group of people trying to explain older oral stories / traditions through their religion. Oral stories of a flood in the Mesopotamian region turned into legend, later it was used as a way for the Hebrews to weave in how we still have animals and life after the God(s) flooded the earth.
That stupid ark replica was originally going to have living animals, but there wouldn’t have been enough oxygen! Even with new technology! 😂 I'm curious of how did 500 years old Noah with his three about 100 years old sons (plus wife and daughter-in-laws who weren't important enough to have names) managed to take care of all animals? How did they manage with all farts, urine and manure? 🤢
Creationists find it almost impossible to understand the concept that "horse" is a label placed on a group or organisms. "Horse" may not have been the label to best use for the ancestor of them all, and it certainly won't make sense for the descendants of today's equiids in 30 million years, but they are what modern taxonomists (which are biased to the present) call the clade. Taxonomists 30 million years from now will be working with the same tree of life, but their clade labels will simply CHANGE. The thing that used to be a horse (Equus) might be long extinct but if that clade still exists it will be known as an equid for now and forever more until the clade becomes extinct. It's very simple but creationists almost seem utterly incapable of grasping this concept. This is where they don't realize they accept hyperevolution now, and think evolution is one extant family turning into another extant family like Pokemon. I think the liars at AiG know this, but they cleverly confuse their audience with a strawman to make evolution look stupid, and it works because no usual creationist understands taxonomy or phylogeny.
'Thats what the chart says, this is what the kids have to learn in school! You do believe capital b believe that an ameboa can become a pine tree and a whale' -Kunt hovind Kent doesnt understand that the amoeba is at the base of the graph, he actually thinks that it happens overnight in a single generation 😂
Lets do a thought experiment. I release 1000 chihuahuas and 1000 St.Bernards on an island and stock the island with deer and mice. How long until these two dog breeds speciate? They are not really interfertile for mechanical reasons, they go after different prey and they don't really share the same ecological niche. Now lets say that it's a tropical island and I released both long-har and short-hair variants of these breeds. How soon do you think that the long-hairs of both will disappear? Even though both of these are canus familiarus and technically the same species, they've already been bred apart so far so that they have effectively speciated. A sufficiently large population of these "breeds", released in the wild would become totally separate species almost immediately and continue to diverge. Are they still "dog kind"? At some level, sure, just as wolves and hyenas are also canids. But they are no lomger interfertile and are now completely separate species.
I always feel smarter whenever I listen to you. You should be a Evolutionary Biologist, or religious scholar, thank you for all of the, information that I can research and verify for myself.
"Kind" means whatever the Creationist using it wants it to mean at the time. It is likely to change to something entirely different by the next sentence. Ironically, the meaning of the word "kind" changes in the same way that Creationists pretend evolution works
One gets the very distinct impression that these creationist apologists actually don't have a clue what they're talking about and haven't really thought about it very carefully.
When i first heard you saying carolus linnaeus i thought it was a nickname calling him careless for not realizing that a family tree might just be a family tree
If a god created different animals to be different, it would be under no obligation to use the same genes for different 'kinds' of outwardly similar animals. Cheetahs, lions, tigers and all other cats would not show genetic similarities indicating a common ancestry. Nor would vestigial organs or anatomical structures appear. Nor would transitional forms appear sequentially in the fossil record indicating a slow adaptation over time. The only way the Biblical stories can be explained is that the authors didn't know anything about how the world actually worked, and the only way they make sense is if the reader doesn't know either.
Has anyone ever developed a "Tree of All Things"? I think it would be pretty cool to start off with the BB and then the cooling down, then coalescing neurons, protons and electrons, all the building blocks for matter, coming together to form celestial bodies, planetary formations. Then focus on earth and its evolution until life began, where the tree of life is inserted. I know that's what the various applicable fields of science have already explained for the most part, but IMO the "tree of life" by itself is a tree without roots, soil, water, or sunshine.
India elephants v African elephants aren't the same 'kind'! At 95% genetic similarity, they have less genetically similarity than urangutans and humans. Or, are we the same 'kind' as urangutans?🤔🤪
When you bring up that the african elephant (the Loxodon) and the Asian Elephant (elephans) crossbreeding does not work. Zoo breeding tests resulted in death birthes and no carrying at all. Creationists start to rotate around. That an evil zoo cabbal just hides all hybrid babies or that gene counting shall be unreliable and not trustworthy as all of genetic science shall also be an evil cabbal.
