12 Arguments Evolutionists Should NEVER use! (Apparently)

PLEASE READ VIDEO NOTES
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: teespring.com/stores/cosmicsk...
To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.
-------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------------------
Answers in Genesis is a bit like the gift that just won't stop giving, no matter how much people want it to.
Disclaimer: At a few points during the video, I mention that AIG do not provide evidence to back up their points. Upon my second visit to the article, I noticed that there are in fact links to other AIG articles which attempt to validate these 12 points. I was somewhat worried that I had missed the mark, but upon further inspection I found that these linked articles were also void of any scientific legitimacy. Check for yourself if you don't believe me.
-------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------
Original article: answersingenesis.org/theory-o...
----------------------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------
Business email: [e-mail]
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[@CosmicSkeptic]

What are some arguments that you think creationists shouldn't use? And what are your favourite arguments in favour of evolution?

[@jamesturner2721]

CosmicSkeptic big bang

[@voidspawnhell]

CosmicSkeptic The gravity argument

[@TunaTheMiner]

The second law of thermodynamics argument.

[@TunaTheMiner]

Is that your example of a bad argument? Or are you serious lol?

[@gazerthefishman9036]

Rayn You know for a Christian your very angry and hateful.

[@Idkwhatmyhandleshouldbe123]

Cosmic Skeptic I just want you to know that you are a really big influence in young people's lives, and you have really taught me valuable lessons about being honest, especially with myself. You weren't the one who got me asking questions, but you were one of the few that answered them. Thank you for being a bright part of my life in the Bible Belt.

[@skepticalphilip8898]

Glitchboy Gaming same- NC. You?

[@footsteps2179]

NC here!

[@jeannemoore9843]

What state? I live in Middle Tennessee, so I don't have the struggle of living in church country, but it's still evident a large number of people here are religious.

[@banwaita6723]

Fucking Northern Texas. My high school social relationships were ruined because I couldn't go anywhere without being asked if I wanted to go to church.

[@feni8000]

Excuse me, but what is The Bible Belt?

[@SirBunghole]

I'm an evolutionist to the same extent that I am a gravitationist.

[@trenchmccoat273]

Sir Bunghole And the Bible is about as true as the Earth is flat.

[@Harry351ify]

And I'm a I-am-wearing-a-black-shirt-at-the-momentist.

[@Divine-Love]

Evolutionist? In what sense? Because there are different types of evolution, both microscopic and macroscopic. I too am an evolutionist in the sense that there is proof of micro-evolution (change within species), therefore I accept it. But I do not consider myself an evolutionist in the Darwinian sense (change outside of species, i.e., human to elephant or dog to cow) which is macro-evolution. So, do you believe in both macro and micro evolution? There is literally 0 evidence for macro-evolution, hence, I reject it.

[@exiledfrommyself]

Former atheist In Science there's no distinction between what you're calling macro and micro evolution. This is a distinction religious folks make to hold on to their creation myth.

[@Divine-Love]

exiledfrommyself, Micro and macro are not real scientific terms? Really? Let's see what the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education says about those terms. "Microevolution is evolution on a small scale - within a single population." evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_37 "Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale - what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction." evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_47 I would suggest reading more on the subject of evolution before trying to inform others on it. Have a virtuous day:)

[@michaelnorris2765]

I feel like things are easier to understand when explained in a British accent.

[@JimTaylor42]

But not when there is Music playing.

[@user-id5ik6lq6m]

As a Russian person who is learning English now, I can approve your opinion

[@Wolf-ln1ml]

I'd say it's not the accent, but the overall speech pattern. Alex here enunciates clearly, takes his time and all that. Compare that to quite a few US American speakers - they slur (not every word, but quite a lot), rush as if they just havetogetthroughahundredwordsinasfewsecondsaspossible, swallow syllables, ...

[@robertfmorton]

@Wolf842 yes...Ben Shapiro comes to mind.

[@MossyMozart]

@@Wolf-ln1ml - I was unaware that swallows used syllables. Evolution! Really, though, what does that mean? Thank you.

[@vinx.9099]

fun fact: we know less about gravity then about evolution. we know how evolution works, we know how specific chemicals interact and population mechanics that lead to changes in allele frequency. gravity though? we can set up laws, but when it comes to explaining why these laws are followed we're surprisingly lacking in explanations.

[@jonathanstensberg]

So this is a poor argument; here's why: gravity is a fundamental force while evolution is an emergent phenomenon. We can write down the mathematical laws that describe gravity, but there's little to dig into beyond that apart from trying to unify gravity with the other forces. Evolution, on the other hand, is not described by a simple equation; rather, it is the manifestation of fundamental forces acting in concert upon many, many, many,...many objects. Thus, we can deconstruct evolutionary processes into smaller pieces, which can themselves be deconstructed, and on and on. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.

[@vinx.9099]

@@jonathanstensberg it's not an argument. it was literally just a fun fact. also you Seem (i may very well be wrong. it's late here + i'm tired as fuck) that you conflate law and theory a bit. yes the law of gravity is shallow just like every law (just like the evolutionary law of Monophyly). the theory explains why the laws are a thing. the theory of gravity talks about things like bend spacetime (something i'm currently definitely to sleepy to recall/comprehend). the theory of gravity is not the law(s) of gravity, the laws are the simple equations or statements, the theory is not.

[@TheLizardOfOz]

@@jonathanstensberg No, it's a valid comment when creationists pull out the gravity card to try to debunk evolution.

[@leondequadros]

I did a project on gravity, there really wasn't that much matter on it

[@durjam3734]

@@leondequadros I cant tell if this is meant to be a joke

[@caffeinatedpanda1511]

Hi Alex, I just wanted to thank you for the impact you've had on my life. I was raised Roman Catholic as a child and was either homeschooled (aka uneducated) or placed in a fundamentalist Christian school for most of my life. Until roughly a year ago I knew nothing about evolution besides the utter propaganda fed to me by my teachers and church. After a lifetime of unanswered questions and "evidence" that didn't add up, I decided to do my own research to find the truth once and for all. The more I learned about and actually READ the Bible (something I was never encouraged to do) the more holes and fallacies I began picking up on. However, it wasn't until I found your channel and watched some of your content that I decided to drop my faith altogether and proudly call myself an atheist. It is so inspiring to know that there are others out there, especially my age, who disagree with the religion they were brought up in and that it is actually OKAY to have an opinion that contradicts what others teach. You have literally changed my life, and I cannot thank you enough. Keep up the good work!

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Hey Mary, Congratulations on thinking for yourself. It means a lot that you value the videos, and I'm glad I could have played a small part in your understanding of atheism. All the best!

[@KiidDivine3]

Mary McAlister wow your story put a smile on my face.

[@GlimpseCorp]

Being homeschooled doesn't mean you were uneducated, although perhaps there is a higher chance of that.

[@feni8000]

Teak I think she means that her parents homeschooled her to use education as a tool for pushing their beliefs into her, but not to actually educate her.

[@GlimpseCorp]

That's fair enough. I wasn't quite sure what she meant, so I made my comment.

[@hansolo6017]

I love the words "evolutionists" and "evolutionism". As if biological change by natural selection requires belief to function.

[@daryla7825]

han solo and therein lies the falicy of evolution. Natural selection may alter the physical characteristics of a species, but it has never changed one species into a different species as claimed by evolutionist, thus rendering the theory of evolution a work of fiction, a mere fairy tale to alleviate the guilt of rejecting God. For what other reason do evolutionist hold on to beliefs that have been proven false by empirical science?

[@stefantherainbowphoenix]

Daryl A So what kind are chevrotains, pronghorns, giraffes, okapis, deer, antelopes, wildebeest, impala, gazelles, sheep, goats, muskoxen, domestic cattle and musk deer? They all share a common ancestor so they must be the same kind, right? And what about whales and hippos? What kind are they?

[@leduy6623]

@ildg 007 You mean Macroevolution = Microevolution*Time?

[@leduy6623]

@@daryla7825 Daryl A The concept of "species" is human-made and arbitrary, it was first made for the purpose of putting animals with similar traits into a classification to indentify the animals and their roles in agriculture. Just like ildg 007 said, mutations introduce new genomes (which result into new traits), natural selection eliminate identities having traits not fit for survival in the local environment and keep the ones fitting to survive, this process happens continuously and the local environment change as well, changing the conditions for survival. After a long period of time, some "species" disappear, others branching into different defendants.

[@leduy6623]

@@stefantherainbowphoenix What I said below goes for you as well

[@lanwangji1224]

Evolutionary fact in actuality: By 2015, 30% of the world population was already not growing their wisdom teeth. Experts believe it is due to the fact that the food are softer and more processed.

[@bennnyg]

Hi Izzy, how is losing teeth or using less teeth evidence of evolution? It seems to be more like evidence of devolution. Wouldn’t an evolutionary fact would be one which showed how we get to teeth from no teeth, rather than how we get to less teeth from teeth? cheers : )

[@lanwangji1224]

@@bennnyg hey Ben! In the past, we would use those teeth to chew on hard materials (like the meat that we would hunt). As we've moved along the evolutionary path, our jaws have become weaker and smaller in order for our brains to grow larger. That would be the explanation for how less teeth = evolution.

[@placeadrien5566]

@@bennnyg devolution isn't a concept. Evolution means change, not upgrade. Classical mistake, it's forgiven.

[@CosmicCanvas666]

Bullshit! Are you saying by the process of natural selection, those who grew wisdom teeth died more and reproduced less compared to those who didn't grow them because not having wisdom teeth gives you a survival advantage? If at all this "devolution" happened, it could be by some epigenetic mechanism we don't know.

[@CosmicCanvas666]

@@lanwangji1224 "our jaws have become weaker and smaller in order for our brains to grow larger". The way you framed it, it sounds like our bodies have intelligently made this happen with a goal in mind. Regardless, why would a slightly larger brain and a smaller jaw due to some kind of mutation we don't know about be selected? Does it really give you a survival advantage? What about all carnivores and other animals who get along with large jaws and small brain?

[@pupsy2454]

guess what, my school doesn't teach evolution so I'm just studying it myself when no one else is home

[@elpoodoo3099]

@AllInGreys they probably think the Big Bang was when god created the universe. I’ve seen Christians hold that position.

[@paolopiccinno7351]

Bruh, I'm so sorry for you

[@Phylaetra]

I am so sad to hear that! Please let me know if you have any questions!

[@docta2985]

Same with my school. The people that are supposed to teach us, think the earth is 6000 fucking years old xD. Wtf happened to common sense????

[@MossyMozart]

@@docta2985 - Those schools are really limiting your choices when it comes time to transfer into a college.

[@ruby7163]

I live in a Muslim country at the moment (Well,not on laws but the majority is muslim) and I used to think that my country is far behind of other,especially Europian,countries but now I see that every kind of religion shuts people's eyes to science and sense.I don't care about people's beliefs tbh but showing their holy books as a source of science on arguements about science ? Seems like we haven't learnt a damn thing from the past thousands of years.

[@mickeythompson9537]

"only cherry picking what they want from the Bible" Describes EVERY single christian.

[@MrDANGitall]

Silent Scream - My complete condolences! You must have three or four testicles bec. to publicly proclaim doubt of your religion is tantamount to some version of suicide in muslim countries. The thing about religion is that it provides some kind of ulterior or ultimate meaning in and about human life. This is an almost irresistible draw to those who either can't or won't try to think past it all, especially since there doesn't seem to be any other "beautiful" alternative. Best of luck, wherever you are.......

[@chronicles2613]

@Marco Aurelio no TRUE Scotts man

[@FNLNFNLN]

@Metsarebuff 22 What you mean to say is "many chistians are functionally atheists who hang on to a few cultural trappings of christianity (most of which were inherited from older pagan traditions anyway) around which they base their identity".

[@FahimusAlimus]

Silent Scream I’m a Muslim too, your country is doing it wrong, iSlam encourages gaining knowledge regardless of what it should be. If you want to know how evolution can be compatible with Islam watch what dr. Shabir ally had to say about it.

[@tommy_1446]

"Jesus was raised to a mountain so tall, he could see every nation of Earth." That would make a lot of sense if you consider that the guy who wrote this thought the earth was flat.

[@PhaniSharma2111]

Tommy _144 Which verse in Bible is this? Would love to read it.

[@onigbajamo]

Phani Sharma When he was tempted by Satan.

[@Oziruofficiel]

we need a captain, which verse is this ?

[@xdamogussus2535]

Tommy _144 OMG I need that verse!

[@tommy_1446]

Chernov21 2 Its mathew 4: 8

[@OneTrueScotsman]

Ken Ham: "The bible says the world is round long before it was possible to know" Except that Pythagoras showed us that the world was spherical 2,500 years ago.

[@yoursonisold8743]

Christians don't like acknowledging those pesky pagans that were more scientifically advanced than the goat herders that wrote the bible.

[@Zanta100]

@Ricahrd P'Brien a circle under a dome on the back of an elephant ect

[@graysonmobley5158]

@@yoursonisold8743 First, I genuinely love debate and I will not get emotional or dramatic. Do not read any of my messages that way, it's not what would have been intended. I am a Christian and I do acknowledge that there are some arguments and aspects of Christianity that can not necessarily be proven by science. However, a large majority of those remaining arguments and aspects (unproven by science) are not necessarily incorrect. In fact, the counterpart to science, logic, proves many, if not all of these. Before you make the objection that only scientifically provable things are valid (can possibly exist), what about the existence of the information of this text. Regardless of validity, there is information in everything that I have written so far, and in everything that has ever been written, uttered, remembered.... you get the point. Well... what is the mass of a memory? what is the chemical composition of knowledge? Or what about emotions? how much does hate weigh? what is the radioactivity level of jealousy? In short, there are things that exist that either does not need to be proved scientifically or can not be proven.

[@bethsargent1336]

Yourson Isold very true. It upsets the narrative that the goat herders were the chosen ones and their god was the one true god who would eventually save everyone.

[@jfrmfrjm]

​@@graysonmobley5158 It seems that you are not aware, but science is actually getting there - to weigh hate, or measure the mass of memory, for example. To quote a brain scientist: The more we get to know about the brain, the further soul escapes. That is to say, more and more about our personality turns out to be just plain chemistry and other brain functions. What comes to "provability" of the information in your text, seems like you don't know much about linguistics (me neither). But they managed to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs, Maya hieroglyphs and Sumerian cuneiform after all, and ancient Egyptian as well as Mayan voice system has even been reconstructed, so…

[@johanneswohler5476]

I'm so older than Alex but here I am, with open mind learning from him with his stuffs and all even though he is busy in uni. Education indeed is a life long process. Thank you.

[@helenamcginty4920]

I am nearly 75 and am also learning, not so much on ideas but on how to express them with clarity. But then I am also one of those bods who love learning. I do try to listen to people with different opinions. With politics and economics that is quite easy. But when it comes to flat earthers and qanon followers I find it difficult. But never sneer.

[@waderobins07]

knock it off! You're just too rational. You have to have more blind faith!

[@digital.lake.enjoyer]

holy fuck, ive seen you way too many times in athiest videos. We call ourselves athiests because we have proof that disproves your "true events" luke the ark.

[@josephkennedy1954]

john dilexit Jesus Christus the Bible says if call any man a fool you are in danger of hell fire you called this person an idiot aka a fool... good luck on your grammatically righteous venture!

[@coena9377]

"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable". --Sam Harris

[@coriander2358]

Rationality is great

[@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube]

@@johnny50424 way to not sound like a psychotic cultist there, you're not fit for public places are you?

[@ControllerOverheat]

Bring up antibiotic resistance. Boom evolution right before our eyes. We can observe evolution.

[@theoldone2089]

krisham they often say micro evolution isn't the same as macro evolution.....they lack intelligence

[@skelskeleton]

Yes and it is also completely terrifying. News flash creationists: The study of evolution hrlps prevent "super bacteria"

[@harleen7871]

Yes!!! I always think about how creationists would respond to antibiotic resistance since it's directly observable proof of evolution and that's like their favorite idiotic argument. As if that helps them prove creationism somehow..No one observed a man living in a fucking whale or a talking snake - AND there's no evidence that anyone ever did. The Bible is written by MAN not God, so it's not proof, by their own standards, for creationism either. All their arguments are so dumb! They will probably say something stupid anyway though in response to antibiotic resistance as proof. Morons.

[@Xizile93]

I actually used that argument once. The creationist said that "it's just micro-evolution because the bacteria are still bacteria, and they will never be anything else; but a wolf will never turn into a tree" At that point too many of my brain cells had fallen, so I retreated from the battlefield :D Seriously, though - a wolf would not turn into a tree?? That's not how evolution works!

[@xSwordLilyx]

Peter White If only they were smart enough to be astronauts... they would have never even taken flat earth 'theory' seriously for a second.

[@thebootycallofcthulhu826]

"If I were to take this microphone and hold it here I'm pretty sure that if I let go this is going to fall to the ground. Now I can't be certain of this because I can't see the future but based on inductive reasoning and things that I've seen in the past I can assume it's going to happen again" *Drops mic* "And that's science"

[@MossyMozart]

TheBootyCallOf Cthulhu - I am very sorry, but you are DEAD WRONG!!! It was a book. ^_^

[@Mirabell97]

To the „You can‘t demonstrate evolution in the lab argument“ - but you can! Of course I can‘t make a goat from an amoeba, I don‘t have a couple of million years and I don‘t know the selective pressures I would need to do so. However, I can get bacteria to grow on antibiotics, I can get them to produce something they otherwise wouldn‘t - I could get fungi to produce antibiotics etc.. It all depends on what I want, but I can use evolution for stuff like this. Nobel prizes were won for methods including some kind of evolution - look um directed evolution if interested :)

[@hazzatube7505]

but can u get a fin to turn into a wing or matter to turn into life, consciousness to turn into self consciousness

[@Mirabell97]

@@hazzatube7505 Well, no, not in the lab - due to too little time. We're trying to turn matter into life (Look up the Miller-Urey-Experiment) and we can generate complex molecules by chance. But as I said, we don't have thousands of years to perform experiments, which is why we use directed evolution on organisms that have faster generation times. If we had thousands of years and an appropriate selection pressure, I'm sure we could get an animal that does not have wings now to have wings later.

[@CandidDate]

@@Mirabell97 WRONG! IF you could hypothetically simulate this Universe from abiogenesis to humans sitting at computers talking, THEN you wouldn't need billions of years. Red herring! No one can reproduce evolution by natural selection because it is not a viable theory. In other words, it is incorrect. None of us has billions of years to do anything, so your argument is a RED HERRING!

[@CandidDate]

@@hazzatube7505 Evolution is a story. Just like Genesis. Just a story.

[@Mirabell97]

@@CandidDate Evolution takes place when I put bacteria on an agar plate with just enough antibiotic to not kill them. And then transfer them to the next agar plate with a little more antibiotic that would have killed the first generation. And then the next and the next and after a few generations, I'll get a strain that is resistant to antibiotics. Directed evolution is a thing that has been used in labs for a really long time now - and whether or not all the fine details in the history of life are perfectly right, that I don't know (and I never stated I did), but the general procedure of evolution works and has been tested & used in labs for decades. Don't even know what my argument's supposed to be a red herring for. Are you stating evolution isn't real?

[@ozymvndiaz]

Fact check : the earth is actually half a meatball. the great spaghetti lord chose this, powrful he is. (btw GRAVYty is NOMexistent) put more food puns for eternal PUNishment.

[@Notthetimeforit]

I've got one thing to tell the spaghetti monster. y'all need cheeses 😄.

[@ozymvndiaz]

in QUESO (cheese in spanish, ^kay-so^) of emergency, i pray to cheesus

[@ozymvndiaz]

IdleBigots you are inSALTing my RELISHion. dont talk to me or my SUN ever again

[@ozymvndiaz]

IdleBigots what.

[@Notthetimeforit]

IdleBigots did you have a stroke or something??

[@arandomartist5599]

I love listening to your videos while I draw and paint. Your voice is very relaxing.

[@lotsofhazelnuts]

Agreed.

[@kaliepmurangi1497]

white noise? Cause that kid talks nonsense.

[@wilsonlee4372]

I love this comment

[@wilsonlee4372]

@@kaliepmurangi1497 shut

[@XxlilmewmewxX]

@@kaliepmurangi1497 oh damn. u must be braindead. sad.

[@wilsonlee4372]

Creationists never give direct, observable evidence outside a stone-age book that was rewritten and translated several times: Change My Mind

[@graysonmobley5158]

as for the rewritten and translated part, read the last quarter or so of "I dont have enough faith to be an atheist". I'm not trying to convert you, but I do want to show that the historical part of the Bible is valid, at the very least. you can argue with me on everything else

[@joeyschmutnick5695]

@@graysonmobley5158 yeah the universe is totally made up of water like genesis 1.1 states

[@JR-rk3hs]

Meh.. its iron age but whatevwr

[@joeyschmutnick5695]

@@graysonmobley5158 funny how theists cling onto the most literal meaning of their bible phrases when it fits their narrative but when the it's demonstrably incorrect it's all just metaphors and symbolism

[@anthonywhitney634]

Wrong. Do your research. Look up two things 1) Creation Ministries (in regards to scientific observations), 2) Biblical textual criticism in regards to the reliability of the Bible.

[@maddiep6430]

Everything revolves around the earth. You have a lot of evidence to prove me wrong? Well this book written thousands of years ago says it's true. Do I have any other proof? Well the book says anyone who says otherwise is wrong, so...

[@pinz_6370]

What book says that

[@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube]

Yeah i love how there are parts of the bible that says "anyone who dosent believe this is a fool" its like a fucking child wrote it

[@Ivann1005]

@@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube Point out the parts,please

[@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube]

@@Ivann1005 Psalm 14 “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no-one who does good.

[@Ivann1005]

@@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube That is one part,not more.And it is True,that a fool says that.Creation proves a Creator and anyone who can't use logic and says there is no God is a fool...🤷

[@waterandtreefilms]

I think that you do a really good job at explaining things in a calm, respectful manner without pointing the finger. Well done, We need more people like you. Thankyou

[@Ari_C]

Jim Thinnsen How can you not realize how hypocritical it is to say something is "lies" simply because it's based on belief when what you believe has no more(if even the same amount of) observable evidence, nor does it have any way to watch play out.

[@Ari_C]

Jim Thinnsen That literally didn't answer my question. You keep saying the theory of evolution is a "scientific religion" as if that disproves it when there is nothing more concrete supporting your beliefs(at least, I assume so since you seem to have conveniently left out any actual evidence supporting what these people are saying.) what exactly is it that you believe anyways? Creationism? Cause if so, how is there anything more concrete supporting that than what's supporting TTOE?

[@fredarroyo7429]

not even God reveals all truth and cannot lie, we know the truth and trust in him , we know this promises are truth, evolution is pure speculation

[@swtorjunkie6171]

@@Ari_C just because you chose to ignore evidence of evolution, doesn't mean everyone else also has to ignore it.. It's a choice you personally made to be ignorant. Your choice.. Not ours.. Therefore, we don't have to believe what you believe just because you say so.. I'll take evidence over what a random book about fairy tales says any day

[@swtorjunkie6171]

@@Ari_C just because you chose to ignore evidence of evolution, doesn't mean everyone else also has to ignore it.. It's a choice you personally made to be ignorant. Your choice.. Not ours.. Therefore, we don't have to believe what you believe just because you say so.. I'll take evidence over what a random book about fairy tales says any day

[@genewilder9996]

You missed an opportunity to say, “holds no water” instead of, “holds no weight” when referencing the global flood

[@pinz_6370]

What

[@ilovelife8959]

That would have been funny

[@rutexas7157]

How clever you are! When you see your maker and he says something along the lines of: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents... Romans chapter 1

[@rutexas7157]

@Koneko it might actually become clearer if you take the time to read the passage.

[@rutexas7157]

@Koneko to top it off, I am quoting a 2000 year old text - how retro!

[@davem9176]

Ken Ham says natural selection happens, speciation happens, mutations happen, DNA and genetic testing is reliable, per Georgia Purdom, and he believes in super accelerated evolution to get so many species in so few years, and no matter what it is he had said, he always finishes it with, "but that's not evolution"

[@Xavbarker]

After watching a number of your videos over the last few weeks, I must say I'm genuinely in awe of how incredibly articulate you are and how astonishingly powerful your arguments are, yet always respectful and composed which, as you once pointed out, is undoubtedly the best possible way to convey and idea and convince others. I regret however that this doesn't get more attention seeing as promoting knowledge and reason is probably our best bet for survival as a species, especially in a society/societies where moral and intellectual mediocrity seem to be a standard. Well done for fighting off in such a compelling manner the "enemies of reason".

[@AndrusPr8]

"Grab an amoeba and turn it into a goat". OK. But first I ask you to grab a bunch of dust and turn it into a planet, so you know, my amoeba can turn into a goat...

[@herb4n7egend]

Andrés Prochnik well first you gotta ask god to give you the amoeba

[@bradleyhandsonjoehallschro5419]

What I find funny is people will say evolution is wrong because we never witnessed a dog turning into a cat, or an amoeba into a goat. But that's not evolution. That's not what it states. If something like that would happen, then it'd actually be a huge blow against the theory.

[@Nasirsmart110]

@@bradleyhandsonjoehallschro5419 well the most well noted argument is that athiest say that human DNA match to apes about 92 to 96 percent. But sceince prove that mice DNA matched upto 98 percent. So according to that we were first apes then we became mice and then humans. Debunked

[@bradleyhandsonjoehallschro5419]

@@Nasirsmart110 why not first mice then apes then humans?

[@Nasirsmart110]

@@bradleyhandsonjoehallschro5419 because the closest one is mice and then apes.

[@jeremyanderson4866]

According to ken hams logic if I go to the beach and see footprints in the sand I can't assume that people walked there because I wasn't there to see it

[@TheKyrix82]

Ken wasn't there to say whether or not you were there. Some day, I really want someone to answer Ken's "Were you there?" question with "Yes." Just to see if he can process that. And if he denies it, you simply respond with "Were you there? Because I didn't see you"

[@Woltato]

god put the footprints there to test you.

[@adamschubert3202]

That sounds exactly like evolutionist logic. “You can’t say that God created the great amount of various creatures on the earth including all of the earth’s singular attributes causing it to be habitable for complex creatures plus the incomprehensibly vast expanse of space with all of its matter because you weren’t there to see Him create it.” It may rightly be objected, ok but a footprint is precisely unique to a human and it would be absurd to say otherwise. To which I would answer is not complexity, order and intricate design precisely unique to wisdom? According to evolutionist logic chance is able to create order and intricate design so it is possible something as unique and complex as a footprint may arise from chance. It’s utterly repulsive how atheists condemn the logic of professing Christians while using it themselves.

[@royzen2]

@@adamschubert3202 ''a footprint is precisely unique to a human'' (primate) ''and it would be absurd to say otherwise''. That is correct. ''is not complexity, order and intricate design precisely unique to wisdom''? That is incorrect. A magnetic field effortlessly creates an illusion of complexity, order and intricate design. Natural selection easily creates complexity, order and intricate design. This is why the old man coined it, ''Natural Selection,'' precisely because it does not work by ''chance.'' A point people like you seem so eager to misunderstand.

[@adamschubert3202]

royzen2 A magnetic field, generally speaking, is in itself a complex system, it is also force or at least it exerts force, and it is dependent, in the sense of it does not exist apart from other matter or materials. So according to evolution this field either has always existed (which seems preposterous that anything dependent should be eternal) or this complex, exerting, dependent system was conceived out of/from nothing. “Natural selection easily creates complexity, order and intricate design.” So explain to me how natural selection, which is professed to be a process, brought forth living matter out of non living. Or used preexistent material to create a complex life form. I may get the same question in return. How did God bring forth these things? A valid question. Newton said well, “God created everything by number, weight, and measure.” I have actually tried to understand how it is not chance, yet I cannot get over the fact of calling an unguided process anything but chance.

[@shiweichen5447]

wow... Youre so great!!! All the athiesm channels like professor stick, viced rhino, and the such all are so rude to the people they debunk. You are one of the only channels ive come across who respect religion and try to actually change their minds instead of making them look crazy! Thank you, you just made my day! Edit: Im not christian, i am actually an athiest myself.

[@blackice9088]

Creationists need to stop using the following 3 arguments: 1. Atheism is a religion 2. Evolution is a religion 3. Science is a religion Every time I hear one of the above being used, I know that the person who spoke it has absolutely no idea what they're currently talking about. Creationists also need to learn that calling people "Darwinists" or "Evolutionists" also reduces their credibility when they are publicly speaking or entered in a debate.

[@Quoteory]

Evolution is my religion though

[@tgstudio85]

@@Quoteory then you have no idea what religion is;)

[@Quoteory]

@@tgstudio85 And you have no idea what a joke is

[@Kuumin]

England is my religion

[@woopwoop2601]

"Evolutionists" - I do so love that little strawman term, it's like they really think they can seperate evolutionary biology from science. I never have understood why they are so obsessed with evolution, I mean of all the things that blow creationism out of the water you would think cosmology would be their biggest target, since it just sinks their ship before it leaves port :/

[@thebullshooter9180]

I have a big problem with you using the word "evolutionist." Evolution is not a movement, not an ideology. Just a scientific fact of life. I spend so much time trying to bash that into the head of religious folks. Ever heard of a gravitist? No.

[@STR33TSofJUST1C3]

Well, gravitists are better known as globists by the flat earthers. Flatties don't believe in gravity, remember.

[@thebullshooter9180]

Haha, I had almost forgotten about those nutters. Anyhow, the concept stays the same. "Globist" entails a lot more than the mere opinion of the Earth's shape. When used by a flat-Earther it suggests that one is part of a huge conspiracy and helps to spread lies (knowingly or not) on behalf of NASA and the scientific community. I stand by that adopting fictional words created by an opposing "team" in an attempt to smear your character or put words into your mouth isn't a good idea.

[@FrancisR420]

STR33TSofJUST1C3 globalists are a boogeyman used by conspiracy theorists that are against international trade\government as far as I know. You're thinking of "round earther"

[@bensrandomshows1482]

Sadly this is a debate we still have to have and saying "evolutionist" is a much easier way to say "my stance on the issue is evolution is true"

[@ulek_604]

Probably uses that word because it sounds better that way instead of just saying for example - "according to scientists". lol

[@blasphemmi1993]

I've watched a lot of your videos, especially the past few days, but I have to say you dropping the book was, in my opinion, the funniest thing you've done so far. I absolutely love your channel and it's sparked me to do something similar.

[@nevetsmahgnirtle8961]

Just discovered your Channel. Mr. Hitchens was a man I admired for many reasons, most of all his clarity of thought and ability to articulate precisely the point he wished to make. You share this ability and whether or not I concur each time, I am always captivated by a convincing argument. It's good to take something away to digest and consider. I will look forward to your further discourses. Best of luck, and please don't stop. We need minds like yours.

[@jayranum324]

"12 evolutionist arguements we don't want you to use against us because we don't have a rational way to combat them"

[@morwennmusachia2670]

Jay Ranum 👏👏👏👏Yes

[@enemyoftherepublic777]

Basically lmao

[@historicalbiblicalresearch8440]

Their 12 arguments aren't even internally consistent

[@jamesdavis4669]

Mr. Jesus Exist: Of course they're not, Believers of religion are not drones my friend. We all differ in how we view the world and the supernatural. This impacts our explanations of the world around us. Question: Are you saying Atheist and Agnostics are completely consistent in their arguments? This would point to a dictator of talking points rather than individual thoughts-I pray you are wrong on that.Also: The notion that there was never a man named Jesus who roamed the Earth is silly. Every respectable scholar agrees that a man named Jesus walked the Earth (There were actually two Jesus's in Jerusalem at that time if memory serves). The question should be, did he perform supernatural miracles. And did he ascend to heaven?

[@filipvass8480]

B... but... he just did

[@philipgrosvenor1644]

I am so glad that Ken Ham has no influence on the scientific world. It is people like him that would send us back to the dark ages.

[@essme1994]

Actually the Bible was heavily responsible for getting us out of the dark ages. The 1000 years (or so) of dark ages was largely in part because the Bible was forbidden to be read by the controlling Roman Catholic Church. This is why great things happened after the Reformation of 1517. The Bible became largely translated and read by the average man and science, arts, music, writing and almost every other aspect of culture began to explode. Many of our inventions that we built upon today and are so thankful for were developed by scientists who were also profoundly interested in the Bible and had a solid belief in God.

[@spaztor7723]

Eugene Seibert still religion thaat held us back. Derp

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

he has a degree in science unlike bill nye

[@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube]

Yeah creationist are proof that evolution is real and that it can go backwards lol

[@blackice9088]

Send him back to Australia on his Ark!

[@AbeDillon]

common design doesn't hold up. There are dozens of completely different eye-structures. The human eye is almost comically poorly "designed".

[@michaelantonio]

That is ridiculous. Another ignorant evolutionist position. Just because they SAY it is poorly designed, does not mean it is.

[@TheBaconWizard]

@@michaelantonio It can be proven, therefore it is so. Just because you SAY god exists doesn't mean it does.

[@michaelantonio]

@@TheBaconWizard No, it cannot.

[@TheBaconWizard]

@@michaelantonio Its effecacy as an eye can obviously be measured and compared with a) what we ideally needed to achieve using sight throughout our history and in the modern era as a primate, and b) other possible models of eye that are found in nature or that are theoretically possible, and then compared. Of course, you knew this already and are therefore acting dishonestly; something you would only do if you already know you are in the wrong. Seems like your faith isn't strong enough for honesty.

[@MH-oh8rn]

Let's just say the eye is poorly designed which it isn't why Don't we see evolution in progress to develop the eye more properly. ? Oh I forgot it takes millions of years for progress in evolution. Talk about blind faith . The eye is a very complex which evolution cannot explain.

[@obairna2285]

Up until a few hundred years ago (I think it was during the Great Awakening), most Christians saw literal interpretation of Genesis as insane

[@gabiwilds4544]

The lack of scientific literacy, it burns

[@kingdewoot]

The best burns don't have fire.

[@skepticalphilip8898]

Gabi W. um fire is for the homosexuals.

[@dianab4834]

Gabi W. hahahahaha

[@skepticalphilip8898]

voidsaverob just mocking Christianity but I see what your getting at

[@JakobOrWhatever]

I want to see if these people could argue against evolution WITHOUT bringing up religion as the only counterargument.

[@Oziruofficiel]

I actually made my researches about this case and it seems that every single evolution denier is following a theological ideology of some kind, that means you will never see an atheist who denies evolution

[@rendomstranger8698]

+What The Fuckerino Actually, you will. What you won't see is an atheist without a mental disorder who denies evolution. People with schizophrenia and other mental disorders that result in trust issues could still deny evolution without being religious.

[@quantumeraser4833]

What The Fuckerino Kripperino "that means you will never see an atheist who denies evolution"--- I never seen an atheist that could even define it (lol), Watch... a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? b. Post the *Scientific Theory* of evolution...? c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then *Experiments* that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? And it is the atheist that's following "theology" *RELIGION*. In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb and *"Scientifically Falsified"* 'Religion: (Philosophical Naturalism/Realism, aka: atheism). *Religion*: 'Belief without Evidence'. *Realism*: "the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them." www.britannica.com/topic/realism-philosophy You have some *BIG* Problems. Namely, being in *DIRECT CONTRADICTION* to literally Thousands of Experiments ("Science") Without Exception!! ... "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness *[Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism]* turns out to be *IN CONFLICT* with *QUANTUM MECHANICS* and with facts established *BY EXPERIMENT*."--- Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151. www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf That is: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: *A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.* In other words, "Matter"/Light is derivative (The Consequent), Information/Knowledge is Primary (*Necessary Antecedent*). According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger, THEN... Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : Independent of the *KNOWLEDGE* of the *"Which-Path Information"* -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to knowledge but as a Wave of Potentialities. Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct. "No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an *OBSERVED PHENOMENON*." Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality; Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209 Every double-slit experiment, 2) Every delayed choice experiment, 3) Every quantum eraser experiment, 4) Every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3 show exactly the same results - if the *'which-path' Information* is known or can be known - No Interference (Matter Existing); Conversely, if the *'which-path' Information* is not known and can't ever be known, there is Interference (No Matter). Experiments: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like?? Let's make it quick... To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize... Please take up the *Quantum Randi Challenge* (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist *[ YOU, as it were ]* who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model." arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is... Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent. 4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why? Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position. regards

[@mykey3400c]

shockingly I was first taught evolution in Catholic school and currently work at a university where one of the biology professors is Muslim... within the various scientific communities are many people of different faiths.

[@thedevereauxbunch]

""that means you will never see an atheist who denies evolution"--- I never seen an atheist that could even define it (lol), Watch... a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? And it is the atheist that's following "theology" RELIGION. In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb and "Scientifically Falsified" 'Religion: (Philosophical Naturalism/Realism, aka: atheism). Religion: 'Belief without Evidence'. Realism: "the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them." www.britannica.com/topic/realism-philosophy You have some BIG Problems. Namely, being in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to literally Thousands of Experiments ("Science") Without Exception!! ... "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism] turns out to be IN CONFLICT with QUANTUM MECHANICS and with facts established BY EXPERIMENT."--- Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151. www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf That is: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information. In other words, "Matter"/Light is derivative (The Consequent), Information/Knowledge is Primary (Necessary Antecedent). According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger, THEN... Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to knowledge but as a Wave of Potentialities. Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct. "No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an OBSERVED PHENOMENON." Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality; Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209 Every double-slit experiment, 2) Every delayed choice experiment, 3) Every quantum eraser experiment, 4) Every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3 show exactly the same results - if the 'which-path' Information is known or can be known - No Interference (Matter Existing); Conversely, if the 'which-path' Information is not known and can't ever be known, there is Interference (No Matter). Experiments: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like?? Let's make it quick... To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize... Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model." arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is... Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent. 4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why? Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position." Brilliant example of cut and pasting and wasting people's time.

[@eddielopez2373]

Never heard someone say “firstfully” instead of “firstly” before. I didn’t care for it.

[@bigboy9983]

I used to believe in a great flood that covered the whole earth and wiped out all living things. Then I turned eight.

[@bridgefin]

You didn't even get the story straight. Can't expect too much from a seven year old.

[@davidscritchfieldds]

Well yes I can turn a single cell into a goat under the right conditions. if an egg is fertilized inside a female goat, then it begins to split, and becomes a goat from almost nothing. So I'd say that I pretty much can do that under the right circumstances

[@thetruthchannel349]

"nextlastgengamer1 year ago (edited) Well yes I can turn a single cell into a goat under the right conditions." THATS CALLED INTELLIGENT DESIGN, STUPID. CREATIONISM.

[@pinz_6370]

What

[@pppoopoo4880]

The Truth Channel what do you even mean? How does successful creation of a goat, from a single fertilized egg, mean there is some sort of creator?

[@bay2683]

Lmao

[@fredarroyo7429]

what came first the chicken or the egg, the evolutionist worse nightmare

[@benjamindicker3519]

As an Australian, I would like to apologize for Ken Ham.

[@mikepublic111]

Jim T -- Ben is apologizing because Ken Ham is an idiot who thinks that some Arab shepherds thousands of years ago knew more about the natural world than do biologists of today. Your comments show that you have no understanding of evolution or common sense.

[@FrancisR420]

Jim Thinnsen oh come on you're joking right You're fucking with us you can't be that stupid

[@FrancisR420]

Ken Ham is probably the worst thing to come out of Australia and that's really saying something

[@lotsofhazelnuts]

Jim Thinnsen, do you still believe in your reasoning, or shall I begin pointing out flaws 5 months later?

[@ellmatic]

As an American, I would like to apologize.

[@Richardparent879]

I really appreciate your video, you real your self to being a very intelligent person and you don't display any arrogance, you show respect to those creationists who rarely do when they are dismissive of evolution. Oh and I again your voice has a stoic confidance to it as it is very pleasant to listen too. Keep up the videos from new subscriber!

[@danalmighty8248]

Glad I stumbled upon your videos. Very informed and honestly, everything you’ve said so far in the ones I’ve seen fits my world view,(I’m not opposed to people proving me wrong, I’m hoping I am honestly) but enough knowledge of physics and how our world that we experience works in our knowledge of chemistry, I’m sure you know can be hard to show others) I give you credit for your success and also your video editing skills are pretty sharp as well.

[@melodicgrog]

Creationists use only one claim, I didn't see it therefore god. Maybe that's why they don't work as police officers.

[@Mercure250]

"I didn't see the suspect kill that man, therefore he's not the murderer" Yikes, that would be horrible...

[@Gericho49]

* MY Contingency Argument* for God p1 Every effect has a cause p2 Every effect is contingent _(result of an action)_ p3 every effect is not a necessary reality _(is not self explanatory)_ p4 Our finite universe is an effect c1 All physical effects, such as the universe, are contingent c2 As such it must has a cause (p1 ) c3 The ultimate cause must be immaterial _(transcend matter)_ c4 There cant be an infinite regress of past causes/effects c5 The cause of the multi/universe must exist atemporally, immaterially and necessarily c6 There must be an ultimate uncaused cause, which we call God *explanations of terms* an *effect* is the result of an action (grass growing the [effect] of rain [cause] falling on it ) a *contingent* thing is something that doesn’t have to exist. Grass growing is *contingent* on being watered. Rain is contingent on formation of moisture bearing clouds etc, etc. *reality* the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea. *Metaphysical realities* relate to immaterial concepts like the laws of science, logic and mathematics. Such realities unlike physical realities, can t be isolated in a test tube. The *Principle of sufficient reason* demands that everything that comes into existence requires a reason for its existence. _Bertrand Russell once claimed the universe just is and doesn’t need an explanation for its existence._ But no modern philosopher thinks this is reasonable or valid claim. A *necessary* thing cannot fail to exist. The 3 sides of a triangle are necessary for a triangle to exist. The *contingency argument* goes thus _whatever exists has an explanation of its existence, either in its own nature or in an external agent._ The universe not having always existed, must have an explanation outside of its own nature. That cause must be a reality that ultimately explains itself. Either the universe a) has no explanation, b) explains itself or c) is explained by an ultimate cause. Even if the universe is eternal _(which science and logic say it isn’t)_ we still can ask the fundamental question “why there is something and not nothing.” There is nothing in the universe that points to its own necessity. Stars come into and go out of existence all the time. Some deniers respond with the hypothesis of eternal past multiverses but this theory still begs the question, do each of these universes explain themselves in some infinite regress of past causes? *There must be an ultimate or final explanation,* for why anything exists. Atheists will sometimes claim the universe exists necessary but most astrophysicists say there’s no reason why the initial conditions of the universe, the fundamental constants of physics and the laws of science need to have the extremely narrow values they do. Which inevitable leads to the conclusion that a finite, awe-inspiring, abstract law-abiding, rationally intellig*ible* “miraculous” universe requires an immaterial, transcendent, atemporal, rationally intelli*gent* cause. Now once u accept that argument I will happily explain why that cause is personal.

[@leotamer5]

That is not how logic works. Premises must be self-evident, for even if you have prefect logic, a faulty premise would make your logical claim untrue. It is a perfectly logical claim to say P1 : All elephants are pink, P2: Elllie is an ellipant, C1 : Because P1 and P2, Ellie is pink. However it is factually incorrect to say all elephants are pink. Also, your c4 would be a premise, an unfounded premise but it would be a premise. c4 is not derived from any of your premises, and therefor it still is a premises. I would also like to point out the absurdity of claiming that the universe has a cause. Because time, as far we know, is a part of the universe. "Cause" are merely variations that happen over time. Now how can you have a cause, without having time. Time, by definition, can not have a cause unless we allow for infinite regress, because time can only have a cause if it was created in an environment that already has time. Your logic is little more than unfounded assertions designed by designating half of your assertions as premises and the other half as conclusions, without regard for why we should trust your premises or how your conclusions follow from your premises.

[@Mercure250]

Can I say that C4 didn't blow your mind? (Sorry)

[@Gericho49]

@@leotamer5 Oh dear &*^^%$#@ et al or whatever feeble faceless pseudonyms u self defined, semi evolved apes hide behind! Sorry folks, a premise has only to be more plausible than its opposite. Moreover a faulty premise doesnt make for an untrue conclusion. Your example of "perfect logic" is anything but., like ur [sic] "ellepant'. Go back and study philosophy 101 *It is in fact self evident that Every effect has a cause'* Name something in the physical realm that is uncaused?? The universe is winding down. In fact our sun is losing 5 million tonnes of mass a second to energy . Do u think anything in the universe including time and space needs no explanation (and thus are non contingent)? My major premise is "The physical past cannot be eternal and therefore all past events and physical reality are finite. As Dave Hilbert observed *"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite is solely that of an idea..."* If matter exist in time and there was no infinite past then matter/energy had to have been created ex nihilo. Now folks what is non contingent, atemporal, immaterial powerful and uncaused? Hint it's the same transcendent reality that has dominated all human thought for all of recorded history!

[@thecentalist3160]

I can't believe creationists claim skeptics use the Scopes trial as evidence. (Face Palm).

[@gamesbokgamesbok7246]

William Robb To cut William Jennings Bryant some slack, he did have very strong opposition to Social Darwinism, which was something of a trend at the time.

[@gamesbokgamesbok7246]

William Robb Indeed Darwin did oppose Social Darwinism. The Descent of Man is a tirade against it. (......without sacrificing the noblest part of our nature..). I was just trying to give William Jennings Bryan some sympathy as he's often painted as the villain in the Scopes trial. Given the policies adopted in the USA, Sweden and Germany, he might have had a point. He might have been wrong, but his heart was in the right place. Social Darwinism, and Eugenics in general must fail for two reasons. Firstly a mistaken identity between the genotype and the phenotype. Secondly, an assumption that the desirable traits for an unknown future can be known. Silver foxes are valuable, but almost impossible to work with. Attempts to breed a friendly strain succeeded, but they were no longer Silver. It might be remembered that the Nazis came within an ace of breeding themselves a race uniquely vulnerable to melanoma at a time of decreasing ozone protection.

[@billlupin8345]

Don't we have a more recent trial precedent anyway? Kitzmiller V. Dover? Right there, the wedge document conspiracy died a painful death.

[@evetsnitram8866]

I can't believe CosmicSkeptic knows as much as he does! Is he one of those people that read two or more non-fiction books per day?

[@gamesbokgamesbok7246]

Evets Nitram There a few of us exceptionally well read individuals. I personally Origin of Mathematica by Charles Newton before breakfast.

[@Joe-lb8qn]

Argument 4 ; You can in fact put organisms in a test tube and demonstrate evolution. Or, as i once saw in a cartoon ; -Doctor; "So Mr Creationist, your diagnosis is tubercolosis. Would you like the original antibiotic from 40 years ago, or the new one which was developed after the TB germ evolved to be immune to the original?"

[@KJellyBeanut]

This is why science communication is so important, but difficult. Often the science is stranger than fiction. Thanks for these fantastic videos!

[@InformantNet]

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." Evolution is not a belief. People don't "believe in evolution," they accept evolution as the best explanation for the variety of life on Earth and how it came to be. Each of Ken Ham's "12 Arguments" is a straw man. While I don't disagree with any particular point you're making, I do have to warn you about falling into the quagmire of arguing against the Answers in Genesis straw man fallacies.

[@daryla7825]

InformantNet when a explanation like the theory of evolution does not have the support of empirical science to back it up and validate it, then accepting it as a valid explanation becomes a belief. Modern science has disproven all of Darwin's theories of evolution, thus rendering any interpretation of evidence using evolution as the mechanism of interpretation, a false interpretation.

[@stevenvanhulle7242]

InformantNet - To be fair, I don't see how the word "evolutionist" should imply a belief. If someone who studies physics is a physicist, then why wouldn't we call someone who studies evolution an evolutionist?

[@Heikos006]

Because they were called Biologist. Your example isn't right. Because we don't call a physicist who studies gravity or sonic a gravitist or sonicist.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

Sorry but biological evolution Does have mountains of empirical evidence supporting it. Evolution is a scientific fact irrespective of you like it or not.

[@davidthevatheril1530]

InformantNet I hate how people like u just spit out the straw man fallacy at everything and dumb people just buy into it. I know evolution happened, but not all of these arguments are straw man fallacies. Straw man is when u distort ur opponent’s arguments and then attack the distorted version and say you’ve refuted the original argument.

[@imaginaryboy2000]

An analogy for 7: Evolution is like a body of water: given the chance, it would spread all over. However, it can be stopped by large rocks (physical impossibilities), follow less resistant paths (natural selection), and even move with or against other water (ecological competition and coevolution).

[@myamihaela1336]

To CosmicSkeptic: You, young people, are the future. And I am so happy to see that there's still hope for the future generations. I am glad to see that you are using your brain, instead of blindly following a religion (or whatever sect) and without asking questions about our world. Keep up the good work! You are the hope for the future. 👍

[@janheard3826]

Mya Mihaela I SO agree Mya. It’s really heart warming to know there are still many intelligent youngsters out there.

[@amhunter9619]

No need to thank me for sticking with you right through to Argument 12 - you're like a completely unputdownable book! I find your reasoning and conclusions absolutely fascinating ... more! more! more!!

[@Brickerbrack]

Turning an amoeba into a goat isn't evolution. That's a fucking MIRACLE.

[@sealogic4552]

DrawnSteelHero It's also not physically possible. If such an occurrence were to happen, the requirement for rapid acquisition of materials would either kill the creature or devastate the region in which it "evolves."

[@Brickerbrack]

An Than Van Man Tan Isn't that pretty much the definition of a miracle? :P

[@mondaysinsanity8193]

If that happened it would actually disprove evolution....or at least require drastic alterations to the theory of evolution

[@rociomallet]

DrawnSteelHero well evolution has a miracle at every second.

[@sunlizard9593]

Even if that was how evolution works how the fuck would I be able to influence it to do that? Influencing evolution is a lot different than dropping a pen

[@piperdragon3200]

The only time I've EVER heard the scopes trial brought up, it's been brought up by creationists.

[@davidrosen5137]

I stuck it out until the end. Worth it. Well done Cosmic Skeptic.

[@maxrjs185]

i have 1 question for god, why the fuck do i get cancer when i sit in the sun?

[@caffeinatedpanda1511]

Because he works in mysterious ways

[@caffeinatedpanda1511]

He thinks it'll make him seem more mysterious

[@theoldone2089]

Mary McAlister lmfao!

[@kingdewoot]

God is a complete savage.

[@josephmellor7641]

maxinator schifflers "God made the sun and saw that it was good. But then He decided it would be even better if it gave his beloved creatures cancer."

[@bradyroose9401]

When I see a single leaf on the ground next to a single tree with leaves of the same color, I assume some unknown extremely tall man came by earlier and plucked the leaf to put it on the ground. yep, yep, yep

[@tysaylor7079]

That’s very funny

[@flinngordon68]

2:07 Book just floats off into the distance ignoring gravity to spite Alex

[@MossyMozart]

@Flinn Gordon - As Douglas Adams has told us, the secret of flight is forgetting to fall!

[@od077]

thanks alex keep up the good work

[@jitsewijnstra12]

as it's 02:21, I should probably go to sleep. *new cosmicsceptic video pops up* Well... sleep is for the weak.

[@jitsewijnstra12]

skeptic* goddamnit

[@victordanielcatalan1808]

Jitse Wijnstra You know you can edit your comment😂

[@leubzo1436]

Jitse Wijnstra we have mutated to withstand sleepiness, evolution confirmed

[@jitsewijnstra12]

Victor Daniel Catalan give me a break, it was 02:21😂

[@pikkuadi]

Jitse Wijnstra Sleep is for the strong.

[@GameSlyBR]

People often forget that the best word to describe evolution is "change". If you believe that a man and a woman have different genetic sequences and when they have a child together the kid will have a recombined version of it, you just said you believe in evolution. If you agree that some people would have better chances of surviving than others depending on their traits you just said you believe in natural selection.

[@samuelstephens6904]

Sly That's not the part creationists have with evolution though. It's the "humans came from monkeys" part that trips them up. They won't deny the mechanisms that drive evolution. They are just incredulous about how said mechanisms can result in new species, which is why they think their explanation is equally, if not more, valid.

[@jakeblakesley1765]

goo.gl/images/c4geif

[@Heikos006]

+questioningall1 *No that isn't what the theory of evolution describes.* Sure it is. Why are you lying? Evolution is the changing of lifeforms over time, the theory of evolution discribes it and how species develop. *The theory of evolution is the claim that all diversity of life comes from a single-celled common ancestor.* That is one part and not the whole. And what is wrong with that claim? The genetic evidence that all today lifeforms are related and have the same ancestor? *What you have described is Mendelian genetics, and it is anti-evolution.* Stupid Bullshit. Mendels genetic isn't anti-evolution, it is only evoluion without external influences. But our world isn't without external influences. *It is literally the book of Genesis that species always reproduce after their own kind.* The book of genenis is a worse Copie from the gilgamesh epos. It has it's own evolution. And it's full of bullshit and wrong from the beginning. I mean bats are birds? Birds were there before critters?

[@CalumCarlyle]

7:00 - hmm, there are several places as well (including Ezekiel 11, the book of Job and twice in Revelation) where the earth is said to have four corners, though evolutionists probably shouldn’t use that either since I’m all honesty they probably mean the four compass directions, but even so, I wonder how flat earth literalists can manage to square that circle...

[@naomimaylone7807]

You are so cool and smart. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and logic with everyone!

[@mikepublic111]

Just as we haven't directly observed evolution taking place, we've never directly observed light leaving a star. We only see the light arriving at our eyes, at the end of its journey. How can we be sure that stars exist?

[@Somerandomnobodyonyoutube]

They dont! God spilled his glitter everywhere

[@stubdo16]

Seen it on telly

[@Longtack55]

Gravity, light bending, the boible ;-) etc.

[@wishlist011]

12.18 - An argument about a global flood holds no weight ... Just crying out for "holds no water" isn't it?

[@MrSirhcsellor]

wishlist011: There is a Geology professor, I can't remember his name off hand, but he's been collecting data on coastlines and the rise and fall in sea levels over thousands of years and he has found sufficient evidence to prove that in the last 100,000 years, there have been 3 major spikes in sea level rise and fall. The largest being a rise of 400ft in the span of a few years...not decades. All the data he's found corresponds to the ice ages we've had over that period of time, lining up with data showing when they roughly formed and melted. Which makes perfect sense really...where would all that water go once those massive ice sheets melt? Any city or civilization on a coast back then, with an ocean that is rising 400ft, would be decimated. It's also worth pointing out, that almost every civilization around the world has a story of a great flood, not just the Christians. But, even with all this evidence.....it doesn't prove or say that a "God" did it. It just proves that the world changes, sometimes very rapidly. Humans are fickle like that...we always assume that when something bad happens to us, it was for a reason. We're not special....we never have been, but fuck me are we delusional, self centered, holier than thow little pricks. I'd drown us too...

[@aceofleaf606]

markj6700 The plot holes must be the sink where all the water from the flood disappeared into. You have just helped me figure out where all the water went. The global flood was real!

[@eoinc9511]

There is a book called “The beak of the finch” which chronicles the work of scientists on Galapagos, working from Darwin’s original measurements and research. They chronicle evolution in real time, perhaps the first example provided in this way. I highly recommend reading it!

[@jasonstrange1490]

Isn't that just a variation in a species? How do we go from small changes to large jumps? Isn't it an assumption to say since we see small changes we have to account for large leaps or that we can assume a bunch of small changes are adding up to large changes?

[@tgstudio85]

@@jasonstrange1490 variation in species IS evolution.

[@jasonstrange1490]

@@tgstudio85 At a micro level. No macro changes. That's why you guys need millions and millions of years because macro changes don't occur. Macro- one species turning into another. It's a lie.

[@rafjeevarafjeeva5952]

​@@jasonstrange1490"micro" changes over a very VERY long period of time leads to "macro"changes. It's common sense, a child does not see a difference in size between the one he had yesterday, and the one he has today, he grew negligibly in one day, however, as the years go by, the little size acquired every day ends up being seen, he understands that he does not look the samesize than 3 years ago

[@Zula_The_Squid]

Creationists calling us "Evolutionists" is like Flat-Earthers calling us Round-Earthers.

[@succulentsoccer43]

One of my absolute favorite KZbinrs! Keep up the great work Cosmic Skeptic!

[@stardust4001]

Jacob Samples london is blue

[@yantivity956]

Neptune ! just about to say the same thing.

[@mikeygarcia8271]

If you were to sum up every single thing that puts our planet at risk of extinction...we shouldn't be here anymore. And yet we're still here.. A fragile planet surrounded by chaos..an organized chaos that even Albert Einstein, though he never believed in God believed in an Intelligent Being who made all these things possible--- for as he himself described creation as something that is an outcome of mathematical precision. It cannot be accidental. It is intentional...In order for it to be intentional, it must be done deliberately. God is protecting this planet..but we are living in the last days..it's destruction is at hand..so go back to Him while there is time..you have got nothing to lose but have a lot to gain..your one and only soul.

[@parsivalshorse]

I would avoid using the term 'evolutionist' it's ridiculous. We don't call people who accept the fact if gravity 'gravityists'.

[@ellmatic]

I think it's really just because we do not have two (and only two) obviously opposing camps - gravitists and anti-gravitists. Everyone really needs to (1) "believe" in gravity or (2) have a difficult time explaining the second half of the act of jumping. We do, however, have two opposing camps when it comes to evolution.

[@jacoballard9531]

parsivalshorse too late, I am officially a gravityist now! 😂

[@Heikos006]

+ Zhōu yǔ Qiáo Thats not right, we have anti-gravitists. You can find them by the flat-earthers. We just call them idiots, like we should do it with the crationists. Only because there are two camps, doesn't mean that both are equal, especialy when one of them includes "Magic" like creationism and the flat earther.

[@smilloww2095]

2:04 Please somebody make an edit where the book stays floating and the video cuts out

[@crunchylettuce5446]

I've gotten all of your important videos and points, watching stuff like this is just icing on the cake. The cake was delicious by the way, your channel is awesome and helped me be more empathetic towards Christians.

[@eylizo]

Just wanted to say i'm really impressed how much your channel has grown man. Been here since 6k and plan to be until 600k! Keep up the good shit brotha

[@kingdewoot]

Are you going to unsubscribe at 600k?

[@andrewlynch8777]

+King Dewoot 😂😂😂 hahaha that thought makes the comment sound like a sort of threat, I'll be here... unless you reach 600k then I'm out.

[@wilgarrett322]

Andrew Lynch Immediately what I thought too! XD I was like, whoa man, chill. It's okay for him to reach 600k, you don't have to leave.

[@jesuschrist6979]

eylizo 20k life! I was watching from 12 tho not that it matters

[@wayneanderton4953]

Ironically Christian's use No. 5 to prove the earth as a Globe, though Flat earther's use it to prove the Bible correct

[@pinkballs1228]

14:55 “congrats on staying this long” how do you know I was still watching?

[@JavierAlbinarrate]

LOL! I'll steal this example whenever I have to explain the Anthropic principle!!!

[@richardcooper9167]

Thanks very much CosmicS

[@ufeldraku5618]

Alex best waifu

[@YoLo-ky8ig]

I wonder how it makes him feel to know that so many boys and girls across the globe have got off thinking about him

[@guytheincognito4186]

Ufeldraku 69 likes lol

[@sevret313]

I'm sure he's for equality between men and women.

[@User-xw6kd]

sevret313 I'm pretty sure he's straight.

[@sevret313]

That's not what I meant. Girls experience this and often take advantage of it, so it's not surprising that he's experiencing somewhat the same.

[@haileywenzler8328]

Everyone is saying morning but it's 8:30 pm where I am...

[@yiggywiggly]

Makebelieve Vampire same

[@voidspawnhell]

Makebelieve Vampire Same

[@purugigi]

same, lmao

[@jesusfingers8961]

THAT MUST MEAN EVOLUTION IS FAKE AND THE WORLD IS FLAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!!!! /s

[@theoldone2089]

6:34 pm here!

[@mitchhahaha6451]

Hey im a buddhist/christian and i love your channel. Keep up the good work alex

[@dynamic9016]

Great content.

[@violetsapphire952]

"If you take natural selection and extend it over a long enough period of time, then LOGICALLY evolution will be the result." Minor correction: "If you take mutation, recombination and natural selection and extend them over a long enough period of time, then LOGICALLY evolution will be the result."

[@igorjee]

Let's not forget genetic drift.

[@filipedias7284]

The existence of natural selection itself implies the existence of different characteristics, and we do know mutation is the mechanism through wich new characteristics are formed, so that's really just unnecessary nitpicking. Sure, you could argue that your version of the explanation could help someone who doesn't know about mutation creating new characteristics, but Alex's explanation is still perfectly correct.

[@marcadams440]

And horizontal gene transfer.

[@larjkok1184]

What do you think natural selection is? It encompasses the first things you listed. Why didn’t you include animal needs to be born etc etc...?

[@zmanxx98]

@@larjkok1184 Natural selection has nothing to do with mutation or genetic recombination though. Natural selection only determines what mutations or gene combinations propagate, it does nothing to influence those mechanisms. To be even more specific than the original commenter, evolution is the process of 5 key mechanisms - mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, non-random mating, and natural selection.

[@humbleevidenceaccepter7712]

The arrogance of the creationist view is shown in just their "molecules to man" phrase; they view humans as some sort of biological pinnacle.

[@quantumfrost9467]

Humble Evidence Accepter the phrase simply means a cell turning into a human, as evolution states happened

[@jonh284]

I think you're both mostly right. However (@QuantumFrost), if you watch any of Ken Ham's debates or the AiG show (whatever its called), you will often see how the phrase "molecules to man" is loaded with condescension. Similar to the Hovind quip that goes something like "'They' expect us to believe that we all somehow evolved from a rock." The phrase means what it means, but they are still incredibly arrogant in the way they use it.

[@alanduval4255]

"they view humans as some sort of biological pinnacle." And they are the evidence of the falsity of this conclusion :D

[@beestmode88beast]

Kaiju Guy just like you.

[@apoqliphort3614]

The theory of evolution states no such thing.

[@coyoteboy5601]

The Scopes trial, at least in part, was a publicity stunt. The railroad had bypassed the town, and the town fathers needed something to put it on the map. Boy, did it work!

[@geologist5838]

11:20 They just called me -as a geologist- being useless for studying rocks 😂

[@JavierAlbinarrate]

Yet, I bet the loonies are still interested in geology if it brings oil ;) You just don't mess up with their bible... and if you do, just keep quiet ;)

[@Mikri90]

"the bible - an actual stack of assumptions" That was hilarious :D

[@mikeygarcia8271]

If you were to sum up every single thing that puts our planet at risk of extinction...we shouldn't be here anymore. And yet we're still here.. A fragile planet surrounded by chaos..an organized chaos that even Albert Einstein, though he never believed in God believed in an Intelligent Being who made all these things possible--- for as he himself described creation as something that is an outcome of mathematical precision. It cannot be accidental. It is intentional...In order for it to be intentional, it must be done deliberately. God is protecting this planet..but we are living in the last days..it's destruction is at hand..so go back to Him while there is time..you have got nothing to lose but have a lot to gain..your one and only soul.

[@Mikri90]

@@mikeygarcia8271 go preach somewhere in a church bro, this is the internet. Meanwhile Albert is rolling in his grave, as he never affiliated himself with any of the large monotheistic religions. He was at best, a deist. If you want to make the extra step from deism to theism, you have one hell of a job in front of you.

[@mikeygarcia8271]

@@Mikri90 You are eternal my friend..I can assure you that 100% ---for I myself have seen Jesus in a vision standing on top of a hill infront of woman who was also clad in white garment with a white veil on her head.That woman died the next day after I had seen the vision..that is not coincidence for I never knew the woman personally.She is just a well known personality ..that's all.No contact whatsoever. Many of your fellow atheists became believers of God after having has a spiritual exprience in the Spiritual realm, after they felt God's presence during NDE[near death experience, some during an open vision while others became believers after studying bible prohecies. You have the options to prove that God exist...just open your eyes..give God the chance to prove Himself to you.

[@Mikri90]

@@mikeygarcia8271 that's just a bunch of wishful thinking.

[@mikeygarcia8271]

@@Mikri90 If you don't believe in us believers, believe in the testimonies of your fellow Atheists who once held the same belief as you about God and the afterlife but after having seen the Spirit realm for themselves, their stance on God has changed dramatically. You can't change an atheist's views on God overnight,..right? It takes a miracle to make that happen...This is just one of the proofs I want to give emphasis on. The testimonies of your fellow atheist who were willing to subject themselves to public humiliation and mockery for sharing their personal testimonies of God and the afterlife. A brain surgeon who used to be an atheist is now a believer after witnessing the Spirit realm himself.. Being a brain surgeon who studied brain functions for many years..don't you think he is not as capable as you are in recognizing the difference between hallucination and reality?

[@purugigi]

As a undergraduate of Biology, I love this video.

[@genessab]

Rogred as an undergraduate of physics, I love your comment.

[@krwawyrzeznik]

Rogred as an undergraduate of Christianity, i love you both and hope you'll burn in Hell #godislovebutnotforeveryone

[@caldelt]

Michał L. As a compassionate human being, hell is reserved for Michal.

[@pestilenssi8979]

Huehue,69th like c:

[@krwawyrzeznik]

Greg Martin you ignoramus, there's no hell for true believers. It's reserved for such as yourself and blasphemers of your ilk

[@pimwiersinga8822]

Brilliant talk. Thank you.

[@tinyspacesbigplaces5325]

Saw your talk with Turk on morality. I subscribed!

[@emeliewidingsjo2970]

Arguments creationists shouldn't use (they'll, for the most part, just be scoffed at and ignored) - "You can't prove that God doesn't exist!" - "If God didn't create man, where do we get our morals and ethics from?" - "There are scientists who believe that God created the universe!" - "The disagreements among scientists when it comes to evolution proves that evolution isn't real." - "Evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact or a rule." - "You simply have to have faith." and so on and so forth... (feel free to reply with more)

[@goldbyrd3667]

It's kinda funny; creationists saying we call them uneducated for denying evolution.... if only they could understand it first before trying to convince us otherwise. "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there monkeys left" ugh

[@FrostJarl]

Better analogy, if we came down from our grandparents, why do some people have cousins?

[@goldbyrd3667]

James Solis I wouldn't call myself an expert but I have at least a fundamental understanding

[@johnmcluren9120]

Goji no all the members of one species evolve. Just some evolve the others stay the same.

[@goldbyrd3667]

John Mcluren I don't believe that's true, can you give an example?

[@goldbyrd3667]

James Solis Sure. I'll take that as honest inquiry lol Over long periods of time, a population (not necessarily all of a species evolve at the same rate) of a species genes change (from random mutations or mutations effected by an environment) All species change incrementally​ and our classification of a species is to fit them like a puzzle piece in the animal kingdom. That's how we classify species; it's not an entirety separate type of animal, but if they cannot reproduce viable offspring, they are considered separate species. Think of a Donkey and Horse. They almost look like the same animal, and can even breed, but mules are sterile. And there are obvious physical differences​in each. Questions? Idk if I gave the best rundown

[@PandaMikey05]

We can and absolutely have seen evolution occur in real time. One of the Galapagos islands had a drought, which left only plants that could survive these conditions. These plants had large, tough seeds, meaning that that the local type of Galapagos finch, which had a small beak and ate seeds, had trouble finding food. This led to their beak sizes increasing to be better suited to the food sources available to them.

[@jtvalentine6]

Alex, I've been a fan about two years, just noticed how flawless your delivery is.Editing aside you're a natural born salesman and that's not an insult.Peace Go Hitchens

[@antropophilia]

i listen to these phrases constantly, especially coming from my family and some friends. the way you make everything more clear and calm inspires me to answer everyone rationally. also, the way you organize your thoughts is awesome. so thank you!

[@SalisburyKarateClub]

Love it when they drag out Newton. He was a brilliant man, a theist and also a alchemist. They seem to neglect that last one.

[@pedjastanich4347]

Derek Martin There is a lot of fraud on the Atheists website. They posted pictures of 13 great people from the past and claimed that they all were atheists matter of fact only one did declare himself as atheist.

[@stevenvanhulle7242]

Pedja - "THE atheists website". LMAO

[@pedjastanich4347]

Derek Martin you just hit nail in the head. That is what most evolutionists do, fraud is their middle name, they can lie with their eyes wide open. They just hate concept that there is God who will hold them accountable.

[@mickeythompson9537]

All the evidence in the world points to evolution: it happens before our eyes. Meanwhile, one bronze age tribal myth points to a god - and it's _their_ god at that. If there is a god that holds humans accountable, we'll be held accountable for seeing _truth_ around us, not for blind repetition of bronze age bullshit taught unthinkingly for generations .

[@thomascollins4325]

Good job Alex!!

[@petej6609]

I'm glad I stumbled onto your channel Alex.

[@mikeygarcia8271]

If you were to sum up every single thing that puts our planet at risk of extinction...we shouldn't be here anymore. And yet we're still here.. A fragile planet surrounded by chaos..an organized chaos that even Albert Einstein, though he never believed in God believed in an Intelligent Being who made all these things possible--- for as he himself described creation as something that is an outcome of mathematical precision. It cannot be accidental. It is intentional...In order for it to be intentional, it must be done deliberately. God is protecting this planet..but we are living in the last days..it's destruction is at hand..so go back to Him while there is time..you have got nothing to lose but have a lot to gain..your one and only soul.

[@petej6609]

@@mikeygarcia8271 hmmm. A lot of assertions made there Mikey. With absolutely no evidence to support anyrhing you've just said. Aside from what Einstein said about 100 years ago. Lets just delve into this a minute then, if you will. You do realise the vastness of the universe, correct? You do realise that there are an estimated 400 billion stars, suns in our galaxy, the milkyway, alone right? Each with their own solar systems and planets. And, to date, there are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies out there. Though, the James Webb telescope may uncover more. So, whichever God of the 3000 plus gods and dieties worshiped worldwide, that you believe in, somhowe how puts us at the centre of all that. Claiming that your god created 2 trillion galaxies round us. For us to survive on one planet, surrounded by one star as insignificant, in universal terms, as 1 grain of sand in the Sahara desert. And you expect the rest of us to believe that your god did this? If this is so. Then your god is shit! We can't even survive on 2/3 of this one planet. As its ocean. Never mind anywhere in the rest of the universe. Why didn't your god give us gills. When he built us? Or the ability to breath in space? or to be able to fly to get there? If your god made all this for us. Then why can't we survive in less that 1% of it? The evidence for evolution is insurmountable. I don't mean darwins theory of how it happened. They're two different subjects. That's not 100% confirmed, yet. But the best, current known theory of the reason that we did evolve. As we know evolution most definitely occured. So this Adam and eve nonsense is just a blatant fabrication. An idea cooked up by bronze aged barely literate Palestinian sheep herders millenia ago. This global flood. Never happened. More nonsense. Now let's touch on this soul. I'll completely disregard your comment about the worlds destruction that you're wanting to happen so you can be saved. Christians have been bangin on, hoping for the end times for 100's of years. So this soul. You do realise that every characteristic of the soul, every single one, can be explained by neuroscience, right? There isn't any evidence a soul exists. And lets say there was a "man behind the machine" how is it then that when people become brain damaged or brain stem dead the body can't function? As with the current case of little archie Battersby in my country who's parents are fighting to keep the ventilator on. If he had a soul. How is it possible that his soul is not presently making him responsive to anything, even though his brain is medically stem dead? And also how is it that some individuals that have brain trauma. Their Brain splits in two and can be, in very rare cases, become two seperate consciousness within the same body? Surely if there was a soul in this body. That couldn't happen, correct? So. Unfortunately for you. You comment and reasoning has come from a place of ignorance. As you've taken something Einstein said nearly 100 years ago and twisted it to fit your religious idiology. If, one of the greatest minds in recent history didn't believe in a god, knowing all he did. Then why do you think that is? Regardless of how much precision he believed it took us to get to this point. Produce one shred of evidence for any god, never mind the one you believe in. Present evidence counter to evolution, present evidence of a soul. And then. After analysing this evidence. I'll gladly debate with you and I may even concede my points based on this evidence you can provide. But it has to be better than staw manning Einstein and using arguments from ignorance.

[@jcawesomeness531]

Evolution is observable. We can observe significant evolution in organisms with short lifespans. Just get these people to look at antibiotic resistant bacteria. Also please never pronounce leaves as leafs again

[@samuelstephens6904]

JC!AwesomenesS! But we have to understand that this is not what "evolution" is in the minds of creationists. They are talking about the big changes: "single cells to humans." Bacteria and viruses do evolve and that is a big part of immunology, but a creationist wants to see a germ turn into a lizard over night. That is the observable proof they demand (which is ridiculous of course).

[@audreywhalen5141]

Except creationists claim that it’s too small to prove a huge change. Yep. Their argument is “no that isn’t true”...

[@quantumfrost9467]

Well, creationists ask for evidence that a single cell could turn into a human (time is irrelevant) Antibiotic resistance is actually a loss of function in a gene (usually) so it isn't really supporting the idea that a single cell could ever turn into a human as it isn't gaining what it needs to do so

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

you never witness bacteria changing species, macro evolution is unobservable

[@quantumfrost9467]

Tommy Dolan I believe speciation is a thin but it isn't caused by the creation of new genes It's usually just a specialisation of already existing genes

[@DominiqueKooper666]

Hi Alex, I will become a patron in September, when my income will be more stable. I really want to support your message to the world. Until then, I'll watch and like your videos. Keep them coming! :)

[@yankenbeanstrum648]

Jim Thinnsen You think 97% of scientists are lying?

[@pmc614]

Jim Thinnsen so we just magically appeared?

[@savannahdanobrega9966]

Al S out of what? That's a really big craft project

[@vw3467]

Jim Thinnsen you’re kidding right? You can’t really be that stupid

[@--6880]

Scandinavian Trash there are answers to how the first life was created, it is involved with chemistry, but, yeah, we fucking got created by an old man who sculped us with fucking dirt....

[@vidzeerox]

I love the amount of salt in this. Amazing!!!

[@cjalisyas]

When one person has delusions we call it insanity, but when a lot of people have delusions we call it religion.