You have a predetermined outcome that points to a god Del. You need to believe in a god, and therefore you need to disregard science that might possibly negate your bias by rational investigation. Science and rationality cannot rely on predetermination. Otherwise, they wouldn't be useful for discovery, and truth.

I wanted to add one more thing... about "scientists say that life came from a rock"... The simple fact is that abiogenesis is saying exactly that IF YOU SIMPLIFY IT TO AN ABSURD LEVEL. I've heard that some primitive tribes have a system of counting that basically works out to "one"; "two"; "many"... I see this same mentality shared by both creationist apologists and presumably their audiences... They count time as "a minute"; "an hour"; "a year"; "a thousand years"; "an unimaginably vast nearly infinite amount of time". The problem is that, when it comes to abiogenesis and evolution, our models only work if you play them out over huge periods of time... And, to be quite blunt, that fact makes it impossible to grasp them if you are unable to grasp the amount of time involved. (Like grasping the idea that, if you buy a lottery ticket every day, for a billion years, you will INEVITABLY hit the jackpot multiple times.)

This guy is projecting very hard.

As usual both Paul and Forrest were great... But the discussion, and Forrest's comments, reminded me of something that's especially insidious about creationism... Imagine an actual "scientific creationist" ACTUALLY STUDYING malaria... (Perhaps in some magical DiscWorld where creationists hadn't voluntarily had half of their brains turned off...) He or she MIGHT eventually notice that malaria is more common where there are certain types of mosquitos... And he or she MIGHT eventually figure out that "the evil malaria spirits seemed to be carried by mosquitos"... And that, when we use mosquito nets to block out the mosquitos, malaria is far less common... And this MIGHT eventually lead to a useful conclusion... So, to me, the REAL HUGE BUT HIDDEN PROBLEM is that a creationist on this planet WOULD NOT study it like that... Instead they would "just go with what the Bible says about spirits"... And they would see that as "a complete and sufficient answer"... They wouldn't see the purpose of actually looking any more deeply... Because religion both rationalizes inaction and actively discourages exploration and detailed examination of the world...

“Liberal sources” or in other words… sources

Wow. This entire comment section dull asl

3:16 “Ahoy young scientist! Do you know the times?” I would wear that on a t shirt

Oh, my Glob, Paulogia and Forrest Valkai together in a collab!

Free speech is free speech

Say paradigm one more time!!!

5:35 I would argue that The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was in fact earth-shattering at its time if for no other reason than outlining the ways in which most science is "puzzle solving" (as Kuhn put it) within the a broader paradigm. The book's challenge to existing philosophies of science and in particular the debate it sparked with Karl Popper's falsification explicitly outlined the (no pun intended) current paradigm of understanding science and the philosophy of science at all since its publication. The only reason it does not feel that novel or innovative is that we all live and consume science in the paradigm dominated by Popper and Kuhn's philosophy of science (well arguably more so Lakatos but that's a different debate altogether)

1) no evidence he ever existed. Yes, Ehrman turns into an apologist on this topic, sneering, claiming there's plenty of evidence for his existence high and low... but he never giving such evidence, just demands it really really exists.... like apologists do for their god.

the only thing wrong with the euthanasia thing was that the sedative didn't last long enough, and this resulted in a painful situation.

of course the most obvious explanation is "it's a story, it didn't actually happen"

The George Wald article is behind a paywall. Link in my reply to this. I am not paying.

ParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigmParadigm This guy has the same cadence as Low Bar.

"Either Jesus lied or Jesus was lied ON"!? Who speaks like this?

I love Del Tacket, they have fre sha voca do

Its really annoying that Brady pronounces each word like he is reading it off his notes. Its cool being prepared, but damn you dont have to read it like a 3rd grader bro

The Theory of Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a belief. One cannot be “saved” by the other. Nor can one refute the other. The Theory of evolution can be falsified. The belief of creationism is impervious to falsification. One is from science, which is based on facts. The other must simply be taken on faith.

Yes he was and he also ascended to heaven. He is in the kingdom of heaven. It is the most truthful thing and best thing to happen for Christian’s ever. I can assure you it is completely credible.

Correct me if I'm mistaken. Forest believes that word definitions, like "gender" and gender identity, can somehow mean society should consider certain anatomical men to be women. "Biologist," my arse I wonder where Paul stands.

Creationists think scientists operate from unquestionable holy books written by science prophets. Because that's how creationists get their "facts".

Remarkable, Jesus spoke like Hegel to his peasants.

Be cool to see what comments r on his video

It's so weird to me when american christians try to prove the bible by talking about anything that is observed in the US. Like, the people who wrote the bible were middle-easterners during the bronze age. They didn't know the americas existed, they didn't know about the grand canyon. Their flood myth is not about that location, obviously. They have to be aware of that. It's just so silly.

You guys are so much more patient than I am. I really can’t take this creationist nonsense. Scientific literacy is the key thing we need to teach. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of my favorite books. I teach it in my philosophy of economic science class.

30:50 I wish I wasn’t so moral. There is a lot of money to be made in Lying For Jesus. On the other hand, if I take *their own* claims that atheists can’t be moral, maybe I *should* Lie for Jesus for money 🤔

Maybe one of these days Imes, McDowell, and other evangelicals apologists will actually be forthright, honest and truthful about these problematic passages. But I doubt they're willing to give up their dogmas for intellectual and moral integrity.

Forrest❤

The point is self-refuting, too. Under the scientific paradigm, you can't accept new ideas or evidence, and eventually the paradigm collapses until a new one takes over. But how does that happen without accepting new ideas and evidence? A new paradigm could never occur if the current one is so immutable.

I hope no one tries to make a drinking game out of him saying paradigm, it wouldn't end well.

I think the last election showed us that a lot of people don’t understand the times.

Jake looks like a metalhead. I respect that.

“Justified after the fact”. Isn’t that concerning? You believe your senses because you think you can believe your senses. Your senses are as reliable in your worldview as mine. So either I can trust mine or you can’t trust yours, because they are as (un)reliable as yours.

We need a paradigm counter

I never thought Forrest was blonde but after watching this I can never see it the same way again.

What is Shannon’s speciality? Because this answer is incredibly well done. Incredibly well done.

Liars, propagandists, peddlers of misinformation, hypocrites, only the best people defending and peddling this fairytale.

I can't ever hear religious people doing their science tap dance anymore because I keep thinking that if we were to grant them all their nonsense and a creator, still there's just not possible path to getting to their actual deity, holy book and doctrine. Is it Shannon Q who says that any god who does not suffer from the contradictions and moral problems all current god claims do would be so vague to became absolutely pointless and useless.

34:30. That’s a nice metaphor. I’m not a bible believer, but as a fan of stories it puts the bible in the most flattering light. It’s a story about Jesus and his message with the context and the consequences. I can appreciate the beauty of that message, even if I don’t believe the message is true.

The watchmaker's argument confuses me. They insist a clock can't spontaneously pop into existence, but they also think there is no difference between a clock and a rock.

31:50 what is going on with this change in speed? It’s so bizarre, he speed up to several times his previous rate. Is he reciting some kind of mantra he practices? “Dust to man to…” Why would you have the need to practice that part? His mind is truly alien to me.

Forrest as a cartoon is the most accurate cartoon in Paulogia ever. Also "say paradigm ONE MORE TIME"😂

Paul, at about 6:30 you used the "For the Bible Tells Me So" jingle when they are talking about the story of the loaves & fishes. Doesn't that story appear in 2 gospels? I thought you only used the jingle if something appeared in only 1 book of the Bible.

I think this is the least amount of excited arm flailing I've seen from Forrest.

14:02 I was holding a box when I heard this. Am I not real? 😮

Love how "God" immediately stops being omnipotent as soon as it gets inconvenient for Christians

0:27 always good when someone starts a conversation about evolution with, “atheists.” Because to be one you must believe the other!