Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Creationist Arguments

[@ankhels]

Guys, if any of you are into this and don't follow his Patreon yet, this is DEFINITELY the video to do it on!! If you've been waiting for the right time, idk, go for it. The extra video on this is incredible. Honestly it deserves to be its own video in its own right. You won't regret it!!

[@ClintsReptiles]

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

[@rat_dragon]

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

[@ankhels]

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

[@Rryan8065]

@@ankhelsvery well said

[@areallyshortbrontothere]

​@@lhamaseveramenteirritada9760fair

[@naturalistmind]

I could eat my distant ancestors but fossils aren't very nutritious and the museum won't let me come back anymore

[@littelcreatchure506]

this comment is underrated

[@Darth_Niki4]

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

[@TheGuyCalledX]

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

[@keegansantoroski9042]

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

[@chrisroberts1089]

Okay I gotta say that I laughed pretty hard at that

[@Gorgonopsidcommenter]

Saying that birds can’t be dinosaurs because they coexisted with other theropods sounds suspiciously similar to the “If Humans are descended from Apes, then why are Apes still around?”. Similar to humans and apes, Mesozoic birds are not descended from the Theropods they coexisted with, they share a *common ancestry* with them. Birds are just one group of Theropod. It’s a common misconception about Evolution.

[@42ZaphodB42]

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

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

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

[@crimsonstar6247]

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

[@randomgamerdude98]

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

[@brfisher1123]

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

[@rinashort3919]

I know a lot of housecats who would not appreciate the assumption that they're *obviously* less complex than African lions

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

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

[@MichaelJonesC-4-7]

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

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

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

[@MichaelJonesC-4-7]

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

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

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

[@danielcgallagher]

I really appreciate how charitably you approach these topics.

[@lindsyfish6704]

For those of you who don't know, Clint did his PhD research on increasing acceptance of evolution in the classroom environment. He *literally did his PhD on this*, but he's so down to earth he just calls it "research". It's a fascinating read if you're interested in philosophy or psychology too, not just evolutionary biology.

[@ohrats731]

Me: casually saying I’ve “researched” something after reading about it a few times. Clint: casually saying he’s researched something after spending years of work and writing a successful dissertation about it 🤣 He’s an icon and an inspiration

[@serpentsembrace782]

Any idea where to find that? I'd love to read it!

[@tanyanguyen3704]

How would you dinf it? Like several others,mid love to reqd it!

[@athmaid]

​​​@@tanyanguyen3704For those wanting to read it, google "BYU dissertation 8519" and a link to the Scholars Archive website should come up with a download button for the PDF. Links usually get removed by KZbin sadly.

[@themugwump33]

What an amazing PhD topic! My respect for Clint grows ever deeper.

[@hexalm]

"If Ross and Monica descended from the same parents, why does Ross, the largest of the friends, not simply eat the others? "

[@jaysuscrass9119]

L'rrr had some good logic there

[@stylesrj]

Maybe they're saving them for Sweeps?

[@crocoshark4097]

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

[@bigchungies2117]

Shark siblings frfr

[@objective_psychology]

Dawkins did a good job of explaining this

[@Stratigic_Cheese_Reserve]

"Not to Mock or ridicule but to be sure I accurately understand their arguments, and what they actually think." The heart of honest and open dialogue.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Alas honest and open dialogue requires all sides to be committed. YECers hardly ever are.

[@rbtmdl]

Yes! You can bet the creationists are not going to give Clint that same kind of respect.

[@Elaan021]

I really appreciate Clint explaining the YEC view because I don't want to give YEC videos views, but I also want to understand their actual views. Not a parody of their views from people mocking them. A lot of YEC beliefs fall into the "they're not wrong, but they're not right either." Like the circular reasoning example. On its face, it is circular reasoning, but when you dig into it, it isn't.

[@nerysghemor5781]

Agreed! That's how I handled it when my grandma told me she didn't believe in evolution...but the thing was, my grandma actually had a very smart observation: "If we came from 'monkeys,' then why aren't there other kinds of humans walking around?" As we now know, until the Floresians died (tens of thousands of years ago, but very recent evolutionarily speaking), there WERE other types of humans walking around but that is now no longer the case, meaning the present day is the aberration. Given what we can see with other major species groups, it IS an unusual phenomenon. The question showed that, FAR from her being stupid, she was thinking carefully. We didn't know as much about what had happened to the Neanderthals or how accomplished they were, and I don't think we knew about the Floresians, or a lot of the other humanities. So I decided instead to agree to disagree but go for some fun humor: "But Grandma, there are Neanderthals EVERYWHERE!!!!" XD XD XD We had a good laugh about that, that is a treasured memory to this day. (Even though I now know Neanderthal doesn't mean "stupid person" and that as someone of non-African descent I AM part Neanderthal! XD )

[@nerysghemor5781]

@@marknieuweboer8099 It really depends on the person, especially on whether or not they have been radicalized by the internet and social media. See my other comment in this thread for a really funny story with my grandma (born around 1918), where we may not have gone in depth but we had a lot of fun. XD

[@onyxianna]

Super grateful you were not condescending to their position but thought it out carefully.

[@dr.archaeopteryx5512]

> Eating chicken wings > Gnawing on the bone > Reality update, turns out there can't be vertebrates if humans evolved from vertebrates > Hungy

[@Wobkerer]

Turns out there cant be life other than humans because humans evolved from LUCA

[@KBird204]

> Eats chicken nugget > > > > yum

[@GenesisTheKitty]

​@@Wobkereryou jest but the "aquatic ape" theory does actually exist lmao

[@Exquailibur]

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[@Shenordak]

​@@GenesisTheKittyYes, but it is very, very different from what you are implying here.

[@Barakon]

A Dino eating a bird is like a fish eating a smaller fish.

[@tonyzed6831]

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

[@ChiefMakes]

A shark eating salmon

[@GodID7]

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

[@tomlxyz]

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

[@kwanarchive]

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

[@realitypoet]

Straw man arguments work because their intention is not to convince the person being argued against but rather the audience or third party.

[@markthompson180]

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

[@gracesprocket7340]

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

[@mikewiz1054]

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

[@TheBestAround131]

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

[@realitypoet]

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

[@benjaminbruno6812]

"I want to understand not misrepresent" You sir deserve all the respect

[@topsyturvygirl]

The mental gymnastics creationists go through to make it make sense 🙄

[@aprilmeowmeow]

As a mother, I wish people like you helped shape the education system, Clint.

[@sandrastreifel6452]

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

[@stevenswitzer5154]

As a father. Me too

[@havtor007]

Instead it is young earth creationists who are doing that.

[@zer0bre]

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

[@VenomShotYou]

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

[@dirtywhitellama]

About the museum guide. One thing it took me far too long to learn in my life, is that just because I can't think of a way to refute someone's argument at the time they make it (or an answer to a "gotcha!" question)....doesn't mean they're right, or that said answer doesn't exist.

[@minderbart1]

my point in that is that arguments are not proof. just because you made a seemingly watertight argument that doesn't mean you actually proved your point.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

​@@minderbart1consider that most Socratic dialogues were just stories written down, not even by the man himself.

[@JustAFace_InTheCrowd]

His story is fake for sure. He made it up. “We set up a WHOLE CHAIR for him.” Yeah sure bro. And then Jesus came and told him that the scientists buried all the dinosaur bones. He’s lying so people will think he and his family are smart.

[@garrettschmidt-mccormack7012]

In fairness, given that it's Kent Hovind telling the story, in not convinced it actually happened.

[@firegator6853]

plus they are just a tour guide, its not the same people who estimated the age of the fossil they just present it, that's their job, do these young earth creationists think that 1 specific person digs up a fossil, prepares it, estimates how old it is and ALSO present it to museum visitors?

[@alextopfer1068]

"Therapods eat birds!" Yeah, I've kept chickens too

[@oiltoast3723]

You sound like a dinosaur.

[@firstletterofthealphabet7308]

Now I know chickens _would_ eat birds, but _do_ they eat birds? Like, would chickens, on their own, ever get into a circumstance where they consume another bird?

[@Firebuck]

Several hawks specialize in hunting and eating birds.

[@KylesMonitors]

@@firstletterofthealphabet7308 absolutely. If one dies in a coop or run with others they'll pick it clean. I've never seen that fortunately, but I have seen mine try to catch a sparrow and a bunch of voles in their run. Mine have plenty of food at all times, they'll just eat anything and everything.

[@georgejones5019]

​@@Firebuck This, there's the term chickenhawk. Because it's such an issue with hawks killing and eating chickens.

[@pedroamaralcouto]

Creationists, as far as I know, never clearly defined "information". But in computer science, information is a mathematical concept and its amount can be objectively measured. I think "genetic information" is a specific case.

[@JV-un7qw]

information is a product of mind. How could you clearly define it? PC programs are created by programmers and hav no meaning without users that use it.

[@pedroamaralcouto]

@JV-un7qw We can also say mathematics are a product of mind. Also, the probability of an event must be 0 or 1 for an omniscient being. But I suppose that's not an issue in terms of defining terms, at least formally. In computer science, information is defined as the reduction of uncertainty. If you play "Who Is Who?" you try to reduce uncertainty by asking yes/no questions. Each answer is a bit of information. It's used in video games, cryptography, the Internet, etc. and can be measured in bits.

[@kristiw.1823]

Dr. Clint - I can't thank you enough for what you've done here. I was an unwavering YEC, until my early 30's. Even went to the college that was founded by the guy who founded the Institute for Creation Research. The single factor that began to change my understanding of evolution was learning that the YEC community was not honestly presenting the "beliefs" of scientists. THIS started the doors being opened. When I learned how different scientists actually were from the caricature, it began to erode so many of the straw man arguments. Then I married a man who was passionate about honest logical dialogue. Our conversations, even before marriage, began to help me understand the importance of starting from "steel man" positions of the other side. I was well-versed in the YEC side, enough to present as strong an argument as possible. Which wasn't nearly enough, once I learned what the scientific community actually had discovered. The continuing learning process, over a couple of decades, has been brilliant and magnificent and constantly fascinating. But it has been propelled along by people like you. People who are willing to discuss these matters without snark, or belittling of their opponents. Alas, on the YEC side, it became harder and harder to stomach those very things. If you can't present your opponent without sarcasm or outright lies about what and who they are, I can't listen anymore. One of the organizations that has helped me work through matters of faith and science has been Biologos - because they never asked people like me to throw away my faith in order to learn to trust the scientific process. AND because they honestly introduced the YEC community to scientists that were passionate about both. So, thank you! Thank you for continuing the dialogue in as honest and gracious a manner as possible. I loved your organization already, because you introduced me and my family to the world of reptile friends. You've only increased my respect for you with this video.

[@ClintsReptiles]

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

[@kristiw.1823]

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

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Compliments from this staunch atheist.

[@michaelestrada2772]

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

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

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

[@michaelkalin2209]

wow. WOW! i was half expecting y'all to make this style of video after how hard Clint went during the "humans are monkeys" phylogeny video, BUT NOT THIS SOON! this is extremely welcome, and i would love to see more videos like this in the future. not to mention, you guys handled this with serious class. it takes real courage to put your personal beliefs out there for the internet to prod at, especially within the scientific community - and i'm saying that as an agnostic/atheist scientist myself. i wish that weren't the case. it's really great seeing someone address creationist arguments with respect, and having the science come from someone of faith helps bridge the divide between the communities. well done. this is also a significant departure from your guys' typical video style. i really enjoy the variety. i'm not sure who handles all the writing for scientific explanations, but the team has been doing an *OUTSTANDING* job at explaining concepts clearly and thoroughly in a way even a beginner can understand. also, seeing Clint tackle misinformation head-on in his own style is AWESOME! Clint, you are a fantastic science educator/communicator, and people like you are making me genuinely consider pursuing a career as a professor after finishing my PhD.

[@turbotreehouse9780]

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

[@csickpuppy]

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

[@markb6978]

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

[@jack-a-lopium]

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

[@aprilmeowmeow]

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

[@azurehanyo]

“I’m open to the possibility that they’re right, as any good scientist should be.” This quote sums up why I love this channel and respect you as a scientist.

[@Rryan8065]

100% agree

[@PeterHinkle]

Also 100% agree

[@McMxxCiV]

Yes, this is correct, any good scientist should be open to the possibility that they're wrong. However, that fact is often used by non-scientists to say "See? Even the scientists say we might be right!" Therefore, I find it useful to add that a good scientist must indeed be open to the possibility that they're wrong about *anything*. And that includes the existence of dragons, fairies, ghosts, etc. Just because a scientist isn't closing their mind to the tiny possibility that you're right, doesn't mean that what you believe is any more likely than flying horses, magic, or indeed any other religion, present, past and future.

[@PeterHinkle]

@@McMxxCiV ghosts? What do you mean ghosts? They prove ghosts exist 100 times a day on KZbin. Have you been living under a rock?

[@phoebemoon6952]

@@PeterHinkleyou obviously don’t know what counts as proof.

[@freadadillon4071]

THANK YOU! Your explanation of evolution is the best I have ever heard. I can't tell you how many times I've been watching shows about nature and gotten flaming mad. Their explanations always make it sound like the creatures as a group got together, took a vote, found the best changes for the circumstance and implemented the needed change. Certainly they don't seem to care that the expression 'only the strong survive' is a perfect motto for evolution, not species deciding to change.

[@HangmanSwingset]

I had an ex that couldn’t understand evolution and asked me “If humans evolved from apes, how are there still apes?” I looked her dead in the eye and said “Because we share the same distant ancestors. If you exist how could that weird cousin of yours also exist? You two have the same grandma.” It instantly opened her eyes.

[@Justin.Martyr]

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

[@911Glokk]

Commonality in DNA does not necessarily mean common ancestry.

[@theblackbird3723]

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

[@unlimitedspaghetti6316]

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

[@johnathanmiller3033]

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

[@Meow_Tse-Tung]

The story Kent Hovind made up about he and his daughter going to the museum is fascinating in so many ways. It's the ultimate "and then everybody clapped" kind of story. If it was a modern day KZbin video, it would be titled "Genius Christian Child DESTROYS Evolutionist Ideology With One Simple Question, Immediately Converts Dumbfounded Museum Guide".

[@smilestheemo3365]

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

[@JohannTheBotha]

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

[@regancopple4085]

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

[@octoBadger]

He deserves a "didn't happen" award

[@Raven.flight]

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

[@adrianardensky4585]

I really appreciate videos like this because not only is it a very interesting topic but I find that way too much of the discourse around is is just people trying to prove their specific beliefs true.

[@Phantomphan613]

That museum story has major "and then everybody clapped" energy

[@DrachenGothik666]

Indeed. It sounds like total horse-leavings.

[@microcomputermaster]

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

[@DJFracus]

The daughter's name? Albert Einstein.

[@ShintogaDeathAngel]

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

[@hexalm]

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

[@OlgaAndreyeva]

"steel man" argument is genius, first time hearing about it. just makes so much sense

[@sarahlynn7807]

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

[@flashgordon6670]

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

[@srinivastatachar4951]

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

[@Mikey__R]

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

[@Beergardening]

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

[@jordanneal576]

I absolutely love that you avoided hostility or belittlement. I'm sure many of the people in this video did not make their arguments in good faith, but you never once took it that way, and I respect that greatly. Great video.

[@paranoiarpincess]

Omg your sn scared me for a second. I thought you might have the same (extremely rare) name as I do until I realized it's Jordan Neal. I'm Jordanne. Coincidentally, I also once dated someone with the first name Neal and someone with the last name Neal haha. I'm sure you don't care, but I was so taken aback I had to say something haha.

[@paranoiarpincess]

@@sonicroachdoggjrraven3263 I want talking to you so... I was just telling the op that their sn had my real name in it and it's a rare name sooooo I was surprised to see it. I don't get that feeling of finding your name on things with people's names on them, or that moment of wondering if someone is talking to you if they are calling you a friend with the same name, so when I see my name in the wild, I get really excited.

[@artifalse]

@@paranoiarpincessi would too, the specific spelling of my name is basically extinct :3. ignore the person being rude

[@childofthe60s100]

@@sonicroachdoggjrraven3263 Her paranoia?

[@childofthe60s100]

@@paranoiarpincess "I want talking to you"????????? "WANT"?????? What is the point, the purpose of your utterly inane, undereducated, meaningless babble??

[@fivespit]

Hey, Clint. I’m an atheist and I’m still here. Happy to see someone that believes in god and defends science and evolution The only people that believe in god that I have issues with are those that are young earth creationists or those that spread hate Keep up the good work

[@Dashcam_central]

actually he doesn't believe in god. he told the reason behind saying that in the second similar video like this.

[@deaconofbiology6249]

I am an ex-young earth creationist turned evolutionary (B.S. degree) and geomicrobiologist (PhD). Was a YEC until i was 26 years old and started coming across videos like this that allowed me to question what I thought I knew without feeling bullied. Started my B.S. degree at 28 years of age and graduated with my PhD last year at 37. I really want to start a youtube channel like this that discusses the science without belittling the other side. Its hard for me to find the time while also completing my postdoc. But, you've inspired me to stop using that excuse and start making videos. Thanks for what you do!

[@ClintsReptiles]

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

[@deaconofbiology6249]

@@ClintsReptiles Thanks! Will do!

[@Justin.Martyr]

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

[@johnathanmiller3033]

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

[@deaconofbiology6249]

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

[@toadsbuttytrottage8285]

Clint, PLEASE make more videos like this! Your perspective and presentation is so thoughtful and compassionate and reasonable. There are a lot of creators on KZbin who tackle creationism and often end up doing so in a way that is only palatable to people who are already deconstructing or already agree with them. I love and appreciate those creators, but there is something so valuable and rare about the way you went about this. This is a video I will be sharing with creationist family members because it's one of the only videos of its kind that doesn't mock or belittle or dismiss creationism. My parents are both incredibly intelligent people with multiple degrees, and they are also creationists, and I think too many people assume that creationist arguments are just silly and you'd need to be deficient in common sense to believe it. Thank you for presenting this in such a respectful way! I watched SO MANY of your wonderful reptile videos a couple years ago to help me decide which snakes were right for me and your enthusiasm and detailed coverage was so helpful and I'm now delighted to have snakes! And I can't even tell you how excited I was to see you talking on this subject too. Thank you so much, truly.

[@gmansard641]

This argument sounds a lot like "if we evolved from apes why are there still apes?"

[@Rexorazor]

It is, And it makes sense.

[@Nuvizzle]

@@Rexorazor If Blastoise supposedly evolves from Squirtle, why is Professor Oak still handing out Squirtles??? It's a conspiracy!

[@leviadragon99]

That is unironically an argument used by some of the more wilfully ignorant young-earth creationists.

[@Rexorazor]

@@Nuvizzle I prefer Palworld logic, try again.

[@watsonwrote]

​@@Rexorazor A new species evolving doesn't necessarily replace the species it evolved from. Unless there is only a single, small population of a species, the old and new species co-exist at first, and may do so for a long time. If humans grow a new kind of rice in Mexico, would that immediately change the rice growing in China? Imagine if growing conditions in China are stable for the next few centuries and conditions in Mexico are not. Chinese rice may not change much at all, but the new variety in Mexico may become much more popular than old varieties in Mexico. What happens to the old rice varieties in Mexico? Maybe they die off, maybe they're only grown in Argentina. But at no point did all the rice in the world suddenly start producing the new rice variety, and even within Mexico the new variety replaced the old over time, and likely incompletely. Extinctions of species occur when the entire population cannot find any environment to survive in. During the period of increasing pressure, more species may branch off the original population as descendants adapt and migrate. As long as the original population is able to reproduce somewhere, they will continue existing, so there has to be some event that makes the original population unable to reproduce in order for them to be entirely replaced by a species that branched off.

[@andreashelley4870]

Still remember when my highschool biology teacher prefaced our unit on evolution with a statement that science and religion aren't necessarily opposing forces. That believing God created people out of something else doesn't contradict any scripture. In fact, there are scriptures talking about how matter can't be created or destroyed, just transformed. Thank you for your continued kindness and tolerance. You're a great example of your profession

[@matt121202]

I personally am an atheist. But I really liked your steelman version of young earth creationism. I think one of the best ways to prove that you understand a perspective that you don't agree with is to state their argument to them and ask if that is correct. That last part is key to avoiding strawman arguments.

[@frederikl.1642]

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

[@awkwardukulele6077]

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

[@frederikl.1642]

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

[@jamesmcinnis208]

Is there a way to be an atheist other than personally ?

[@gjhartist3685]

As a Deist, it has always bothered me that believing in a Creator is often seen as mutually exclusive to acknowledging macroevolution. Unless one expresses a literal interpretation of a creation myth there is no reason said person can't hold both beliefs. More to the point of the video and the above comment. I am very pleased by Clint's willingness to steelman the other side. I notice many public-facing intellectual types are super bad faith when representing opposing arguments. I already had a lot of respect for Clint, but I now somehow have even more lol.

[@brfisher1123]

Does that mean that we can exclude pigeons from "evolving from birds" because they get preyed upon by predatory birds like hawks? 😂

[@the_secret_arts]

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

[@shimasclan]

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

[@brfisher1123]

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

[@briananuvattanachai6646]

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

[@the_secret_arts]

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

[@Marques2000]

"It's impossible that a dog killed a wolf because dogs evolved from wolfs" same vibes creationist argument

[@haole08067]

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

[@elliesrose]

@@haole08067 nah thats a terrible argument, we have much better

[@haole08067]

@@elliesrose Then I look forward to hearing them.

[@pierre-samuelroux9364]

So this guy better explain kangals

[@haole08067]

@@pierre-samuelroux9364 Which guy? What explanation is needed?

[@petmashup2672]

I never thought I’d see Clint reptiles videos recommended again. I watched you back in like 2018!

[@ClintsReptiles]

Welcome back!

[@Preston241]

Coming from a background as a former young earth creationist myself, I wholeheartedly concur with your thoughtful and respectful steel man approach to this discussion. Your choice to engage without resorting to ridicule or dismissiveness towards those who share these beliefs is both commendable and rare. Indeed, as you've astutely observed, constructing a straw man only serves to alienate rather than enlighten or persuade. Equally, your acknowledgment of the presence and contributions of theists within the scientific community as rational and reasonable individuals adds a much-needed nuance to this conversation. It's refreshing to see such a balanced and inclusive perspective. In solidarity and with appreciation, your brother in Christ, Preston.

[@ClintsReptiles]

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

[@BrennanYoung]

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

[@thorhelm4055]

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

[@dbunik44]

It's a classic case of thinking you have enough information to know you're right, but not enough to know you're wrong

[@chrisgraham2904]

The Dunning-Krueger Effect.

[@chrispaige8880]

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

[@dead.inside.585]

​@@chrisgraham2904Precisely! And It's dangerous.

[@Sparklyishere]

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

[@cmathias4993]

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

[@EinSofQuester]

If the original Americans descended from the British, then why do we still have the British?

[@tristanridley1601]

A brilliant metaphor I'm going to repeat!

[@righteousindecision2778]

Aww no.. you're going to eat us! Never mind problems with the Russians... the Americans are turning cannibal! (Joke).

[@YEs69th420]

Original??

[@BackDoorSlots9]

that's not an example of evolution 😂

[@EinSofQuester]

@KZbinChan.-gv8pt yes it is. Animals can evolve from an earlier species, but the original species can still be around

[@jaydearien8624]

Good stuff! Just illuminating the difference between the "Steel Man Argument" and the "straw man argument" is a big public service.

[@stuffynosepatrol]

I love how every video "debunking" evolution just comes down to "I dont understand this therefore it never happened." Edit: and now I have 180+ replies proving my point

[@jayspeidell]

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

[@lovesign7882]

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

[@MexicanoIrredentista2008]

False

[@rokkraljkolesa9317]

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

[@Uhshawdude]

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

[@destryallgood3681]

MORE PLEASE!!!!! I’m a Christian evolutionist, and I would love to be able to better explain my position in the metered, calm way that you approach these arguments. I have enjoyed your content for a while now, but this was hands down my favorite. Also, thank you for not making the YECs look stupid. Because of your respect for them, I will be sending this video to my family without fear that they will think I am attacking them.

[@AMC2283]

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

[@destryallgood3681]

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

[@jounisuninen]

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

[@joshuaharris2245]

@@destryallgood3681 I mean in no way do faith and science intrinsically have to compete. There's nothing stating that God didn't create the first sparks of life or the big bang that led to the creation of the universe. So much of the bible is metaphor, and translated by man metaphor, and retranslated and retranslated and reinterpreted, etc etc. So I struggle to try and take any particular point extremely literally. In fact I think some things directly point to things like evolution. "god breathed the breath of life into man" for instance, created from dirt. That sounds a lot like a really condensed version of evolution, albeit guided by an omnipotent being.

[@childofthe60s100]

If you are a "christian evolutionist" you are clearly a fence sitter. Creation and evolution are NOT different interpretations of the same thing!

[@ScrimmyBingus42]

Clint being a perfect example of how spiritually and science don't need to be mutually exclusive. Keep up the good work Mr. Laidlaw, you're one of my favorite science content creators

[@WeAreInYourWall]

But they do, his approach only works at all, because he keeps those things, objective facts and informed observations, and fairytales, completely mutually exclusive .. his personal beliefs Are kept out of every aspect of his understanding and references to or of scientific facts notions and concepts So while yeah you cam have contradictory beliefs to the fields you study or whatever but that doesn’t validate or exonerate those beliefs

[@ClintsReptiles]

I don't see any place where my beliefs and science are in great disharmony.

[@JGM0JGM]

@@ClintsReptiles You work so hard to steel man uneducated, borderline dishonest, creationist concepts but you can't be bothered to properly understand a simple KZbin comment? Why is that? Are you a little upset that the word "fairytales" was used to refer to your religious beliefs? In any case, that person didn't say anything about your "spiritual" beliefs (whatever that means--using that vague word "spirit" because it was mentioned in the OP) being in "great disharmony" with your scientific knowledge. It was said they were exclusive, i.e. not intermingling, unconnected. If you refer to "disharmony" you infer they were somehow impacting each other, or trying to connect, but failing. This is exactly the opposite that the comment meant. And that poster was correct, the only way you can do honest scientific research or studies is to keep fairy tales out of it. But since you brought up the idea of harmony, please, show me how, say, the creation story in Genesis is "harmonious" with established scientific facts about how the solar system and the Earth came to be. The only way out is to claim that although originally it was an oral tradition that originated as a way to try ro make sense of how the universe came to be (like all creation myths are), it is best now to interpret the Genesis creation account as an allegory or a metaphor. But if that is your claim, then you need to produce a reliable process/method to determine which parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are literal... For instance, is the resurrection metaphorical or literal? How about the virgin birth?

[@thenaiam]

​@@ClintsReptilesAdmittedly, that was the one place in the video where I was stunned (however briefly).

[@themugwump33]

⁠ KZbin probably isn’t the right forum this, but would you be open to exploring the following question, in good faith? “If you had a Time Machine, could you visit the city of Zarahemla?” Biology, anthropology, and archaeology all have lots to say about this question. Personally, I think it’s ok for a believer to take the position that when it comes to matters of faith and matters of science, things can not exist while still being “true” in a spiritual/phenomenological sense. But I don’t think it’s entirely honest to say that your religious beliefs and your scientific believes are not in disharmony without invoking some kind of “uncertainty principle” that permits certain core truth claims of your religion to be both true while also factually inconsistent with the physical world and historical record. It would be absolutely delightful and insightful to hear how you reconcile those conflicts, but again, perhaps this is not the right forum? Welp. Guess I gotta go sign up for your pattern, yeah?? :) Regardless, thank you for putting this gem of a video out into the world. ❤

[@MataNuiOfficial]

"lion evolving into a cat is a loss of information because lions are bigger so they have more DNA"

[@johnrichardson7629]

As a non-bèliever who is often exasperated by the tone and even some of the content of my fellow non-believers in debate with YEC, I really feel that your voice is more valuable than even you may realize.

[@ScottDJohnston]

The most frustrating thing is that I completely understand when someone is very skeptical about their beliefs being challenged, but the number of crazy knots young earth creationists tie themselves into, semantics and misinformation in order to justify their clearly, easily refutable beliefs.

[@Divertisseur]

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

[@Stevk005]

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

[@alfgand8040]

If you want to be objective, you need to look at both sides. I read a lot about evolution and it never convinced me. I haven't found any arguments for evolution that can win against Hugh Owen.

[@orion2544]

@@alfgand8040 good for you...however that says nothing about the validity of the theory of evolution.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@alfgand8040 Probably because you're not interested in being convinced.

[@CaioLGon]

The hard part is that their perception of evolution is so far from what the theory proposed that you have to try to get into the same field before you can counter argument. And they never want to get into the same page

[@thunderous-one]

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

[@Weirdomanification]

That was me for several years.

[@Weirdomanification]

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

[@CaioLGon]

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

[@Coz_F4]

Thinking that birds can't be descendants of theropods because they lived together is actually completely logic, if your knowledge on evolution comes entirely from Pokémon.

[@samarnadra]

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

[@shockal7269]

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

[@CollinLutz-p9e]

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

[@shockal7269]

​@@CollinLutz-p9e If they are to think for themselves instead of letting others tell them what they think, then I am sure that they will not listen to you. They sound firm in their decision and are not changing. Neither do I believe in a creator either.

[@dus1213]

@@CollinLutz-p9ethere aren’t two theories. One critical criteria of creating a Theorie is, that a Theorie must be able to be falsified. There is always the possibility to find evidence that falsifies the evolution theory (however it’s extremely unlikely, which is why the theory is highly agreed to be true), but there will never be evidence that there is no god. But if you think about it, how many gods are there? If you Cristian, there is one. If you are Islamic, there is one. If you are Nordic, there are several, if you are Ancient Roman or Ancient Greek, there are several, if you are Buddhist, there are non. So, which believe is right? You can only base this decision on your subjective believes. In Science, there is evidence all over the globe and scientist from all around the world independently come to the same results. Or they prove theory’s to be wrong. However they work with evidence. Therefore, and that’s my conclusion here, you can’t really compare a religion to science, except you are searching for an easy solution to a complex problem.

[@darkdragonwarriorddw]

Watching this reminded me of how my father explained creation to me while accepting science and evolution entirely. His explanation was that God (being all knowing) knew exactly how everything would evolve and thus used/uses/continues to use (being all powerful) evolution and the properties of the universe to create the desired results. This put me at ease, especially as a young curious student who was being raised in a Christian household. He also explained that the big bang would be the point in which God put everything in motion. (Side note, I'm no longer religious, I'm agnostic. I greatly appreciate and respect the way my father encouraged both faith and pursuit of knowledge and understanding.)

[@clara7517]

I was raised by christian parents, who both happened to hold science degrees (biology and robotics). I was frequently bullied by other kids at church, whose families supported YEC views. Later on I was mocked and pushed around by university students and professors alike for admitting that I was religious, and wound up changing my major because of it. We need more people encouraging kids from all religious backgrounds to think objectively, and feel confident pursuing scientific careers!

[@jounisuninen]

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

[@DJ-Eye]

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

[@clara7517]

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

[@DJ-Eye]

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

[@clara7517]

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

[@JennaGetsCreative]

It's always refreshing to hear from a Christian who actually understands science and evolution and is willing to speak out against young Earth creationists.

[@dustenekoes28]

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

[@JennaGetsCreative]

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

[@DoctorShocktor]

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

[@dustenekoes28]

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

[@JoJofghj]

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

[@TheJennnq]

I admire the patience and the wholesome effort of actually engaging with these arguments. So positive and educational!

[@nicklasdraaby7367]

The primary argument against evolution I have come about is arguments based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics: "Entropy tends to increase (in a closed system)" the reason something is written in parentheses is that it is a part of the law which is often excluded in any argument against evolution.

[@remem95]

Also the idea of entropy gets thrown around alot in a backwards metaphorical sense. Its really only (and only) relevant for the distribution of energy in entire systems. Available energy often !but not always! leads to "complex" structures because more things = more forces acting on things = more likely for things to fall apart if not enough energy to hold them together. Entropy is the result of probability not a force acting on it.

[@wonderboy4571]

As a deeply religious person I appreciate that you approach this with kindness and education as a goal not humiliation

[@fomori2]

I applaud you for being a good person. I say that because the LEAST kind and educated people I have met have also claimed to be 'deeply religious'. Almost as if they use their religion as a shield for their bigotry and hatred by claiming, 'its not me that feels that way, its God that feels that way'.

[@DoctorShocktor]

Well that’s just a symptom of cults. You can’t excuse away reality and replace it with the fantasy of faith unless you also demean and degrade those who present the facts. If someone says your outlook and beliefs have no basis in reality, then you have to tear that someone down or you cannot hold those faiths. This is also how we get flattards and space deniers, their utter nonsense must be backed up by massive denial and lies, which often can only be performed by weak minded sociopaths who also adopt attitudes of bigotry and hatred. This is why religion must eventually go away entirely if our species is to survive. We have plenty of modern ways and money to build up new social institutions that can act as the better parts of religion without the horrifying cult behaviors. Unfortunately religions provide tons of money and power to those who would victimize the weak, so good luck with that. Luckily, due to better education and the lack of delivery on the part of religions, religious participation is declining worldwide on its own.

[@neWDrew]

⁠@@fomori2oh what a kind comment! un educated, least kind. Thanks for being a ‘good’ p3rson😂

[@elihyland4781]

5:57 “weird enough to make it” is my new survival mantra. Bless you

[@goatsplitter]

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

[@michaelford6972]

As an agnostic, and hearing your belief, and then watching the video, it gives me hope for civility. Well written, science-driven, thought provoking, fun!

[@GinEric84]

Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on knowledge not belief. It ironically those who identify themselves as agnostics do so because they don't know they are atheists :)

[@mouttremblay6828]

Same here!! I felt the same hope for open debate, instead of "I am right, therefore you are wrong". Very good work !!

[@Wingedshadowwolf]

Indeed!

[@Justin.Martyr]

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

[@KentonJoseph]

When people are purposely ignorant of something they are obsessed with it do they really deserve civility?

[@AliceB0]

I've always tried to understand the opposition but never heard of steelmanning. I love it. You are a wonderful person, stay who you are Clint!

[@LordCrate-du8zm]

As a Catholic and a dinosaur nerd, I can safely say none of us want to associate with creationists, and they are avoided at all costs.

[@luisa.acevedo3326]

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

[@marknieuweboer8099]

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

[@Eisenwulf666]

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

[@LordCrate-du8zm]

@@Eisenwulf666 I have no idea.

[@revol_000]

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

[@homoergausster]

this is the video that made me decide to become a patron. and i just want to say that i think THIS is the way to get people to change their minds. videos titled things like "scientist HUMILIATES creationist" full of mean spirited "dunks" on people who really don't understand what they're arguing against won't make anyone change their mind. they only further divide us, promote this idea of science as dogma, and encourage people to dig in their heels out of fear of embarrassment and losing and retreat to echo chambers where they won't feel like people are trying to make them look stupid. i have immense respect for the way you handled this topic, Clint. I wish more science channels would handle these controversial topics with the same level of care and empathy. and as much as I absolutely adore these phylogeny videos you've been making, I think more pro-evolution videos with this kind of positive tone could really help educate a lot of people who have been turned off by all the videos which end up feeling like anti-creationist programming.

[@midnight4685]

I think there's a line in terms of audiences. My spectrum would be Clint, Forrest Valkai and Professor Dave. This video is very good at being as fair and charitable as possible, giving a lot of leeway. It's the type of thing that would make people more open-minded about genuinely engaging with YEC's and might even change some YEC's minds with how willing it is to meet people eye to eye. The only downside is that maybe, potentially, more people will engage with YEC's in good faith and have that taken advantage of by bad faith actors who aren't willing to share the same genuine consideration. Forrest Valkai does take a bit more of a confrontational approach, but his content seems more to be educating non-YEC's on evolution and expressing the amazing nature of science and how cool it is to learn about. He does directly talk to YEC's on some of his shows where they can call in to debate, but it's definitely more the type of thing for a non-YEC audience. This creates an audience of non-YEC learners, who learn more about evolution by contrasting scientific theory with evolution. Essentially, teaching by explaining why it's wrong. Though he titles his videos a bit like that, I'd say it actually clickbaits people who are there for meanspirited takedowns and instead makes them learn something. The downside is that it's not as open to a YEC audience. Professor Dave... he's kind of the worst on these issues unfortunately. His educational videos are great but his debunks are incredibly hostile and his audience is filled with the type of angry atheists who generally go out of their way to be smarmy about religion as a whole. And when told he was being smug and hostile, his reaction was essentially "So what? They don't deserve respect, they're bad actors." Even if that's right, which it might be, it still turns off people who need education. He does get comments about people who've changed their minds from him, which I think is great, but I can't stand his attitude and don't think almost any YEC's could either. I eventually had to unsubscribe because he was just a bit too abrasive. I agree though, this video is great and there should be more like it,

[@huntermclaren322]

Hi Clint, I learned a lot from this video and would love to see more content like this. The respectful and educational manner in which you approached this topic was greatly appreciated.

[@jgr7487]

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

[@grimjhaixus]

Fish eat other fish. Snakes eat other snakes. Birds eat other birds. The idea all birds appeared at the same time is like believing all cities were built at the same time.

[@theunease5541]

Please please please keep making videos like these. "Debunking" content like this is so often very snide, sarcastic and dismissive, and although I can enjoy that content a good bit and I dont think it totally is devoid of value videos like this where the person comes from a genuine place of care, is respectful and faces the "steel man" of the argument are the things that will really change the minds of the people truly entrenched in YEC and similar things. Great video, keep up the good work.

[@teleriferchnyfain]

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

[@lilarrin1220]

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

[@chickensalad3535]

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

[@jomess7879]

I've seen museums used by a lot of YEC people as "gotchu" stories because either the guide or a drawing/presentation or a display may not be fully accurate or up to date. And my thought is always, guides aren't scientists, they are basically actors. They learn a script and some background information. Unless the script is updated or that guide has a lot of background information, what that guide knows is what they were told. The drawings and presentations also aren't done by scientists. They are done by artists working with the information given to them. If the information isn't up to date, neither will the presentations. And the displays aren't always update to date because we learn things so quickly and there are so many displays that it'd be impossible and expensive to update every display every time new information is gained.

[@bsears85]

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

[@jomess7879]

@@bsears85 oh I agree

[@curious968]

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

[@bb1111116]

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

[@jomess7879]

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

[@JM80-2A]

This is exactly the kind of discussions we need. Very well done making your rebuttal with respect.

[@Wericii]

Yo, Clint…this is brilliant content! Your presentation of information is clear and you do a great job ensuring your audience that your goal is education, not attack. I’d like to request a video addressing Haldane’s dilemma. I’ve heard of this and have tried to look up some information, but truly understanding the implications on our current model of evolution eludes me. Thanks, my friend.

[@waltpro1945]

This is great - steel-manning the opposing viewpoint and trying to be as accurate as possible is what we need in videos about controversies. Keep it up 👍

[@tealkerberus748]

Except religious nutters who don't want to accept evolution aren't a controversy in civilised countries.

[@williamdai8796]

well he didn't even steelman correctly. He actually strawmanned himself by failing to represent the evolutionist position truefully. Also he committed endless amounts of fallacies, one of them being the 'begging the question' fallacy because he read his own paradigm which has not been granted into the argument and assumed that as authority.

[@amazingcaio4803]

​@@williamdai8796 I'd appreciate it if you could substantiate your claim. Maybe you could point out some of the times Clint begged the question or misrepresented evolutionary theory?

[@im_from_liverpool3293]

I genuinely appreciate your direct communication/honesty as well your pragmatism. I have always been a fan but it was great to have a glimpse into who you are as an educator. Well done yet again!

[@SlitheringHearts]

I've said it before, and I will say it again. Clint is a voice that the world needs right now. Full stop

[@garethvila5108]

I'm rewatching this, and I just noticed that that thing about "evolution doesn't create new information" is just a slightly covered version of Sir Richar Owen's criticism on Darwin's theory that "evolution doesn't create complexity". Sooooo... yeah, yet another argument that has been dealt with in the past 150 years. Honestly, at this point I struggle to believe they have any honest intention. They don't even bother studying what evolution really impies or how it has responded to their criticisms before just blurting out whatever idea they have. They just want to reaffirm their follower's beliefs and drag uneducated people to their side, and they can't convince me that's not the case when they show, every time, how they don't even care about what evolution really is. Sadly, this is a clear demonstration of how fundamentalism works. They believe something, and anything they say comes out of that belief without even considering they may be wrong. They do it with their religious views, and here we see how they also do it with evolution. They believe they know what it means and how it works and that's what they base their criticism on, not even bothering to check if they're right in what they belief evolution says.

[@andrewt3768]

Im not sure I've ever clicked a video so quickly lol. I used to be a young earth creationist. I love your enthusiastic, positive approach to education, so I was excited to see how you tackled this. If I had found educators like you earlier, I may not have been a YEC for quite so long.

[@napoleonfeanor]

What changed your mind and are you still religious?

[@andrewt3768]

@@napoleonfeanor I just allowed myself to really look at the evidence and leave the presuppositions I was trained to hold since childhood behind. I am no longer Christian, but I'm not sure I can call myself non-religious just yet. Still seeing where I land there.

[@napoleonfeanor]

@@andrewt3768 Thanks for the explanation. I'm generally curious when people radically change views.

[@andrewt3768]

@@napoleonfeanor Radical is probably a pretty good word for it lol

[@ratwasnotbad4230]

I really appreciate seeing the positive comments here from people who identify as YEC. It seems like these commenters always get a reply asking why they still identify that way, or why they have not been convinced(to take the other side) by Clint’s video. I don’t think we should expect or hope for an instant turnaround like that. People believe this because it’s the world that they have been taught that they live in, and the science they have been taught within that world. There are so many more components than just an acceptance of the theory of evolution, but because that ties into the education so closely, we shouldn’t expect people to be convinced of evolution through one video, either. What Clint’s video should convince people of is that this science is worth exploring, questioning, and learning more about. This is an amazing video for opening that door, and while some people might not be ready to step through yet, that doesn’t mean they shut it.

[@chasem8705]

Great video! This video helped me understand YEC's beliefs better because unfortunately I have never spoken with anyone who could explain it well enough that I didnt just want to throw my hands up in the air or shake my head in frustration. I appreciate this video, and I hope it results in some real conversations instead of memorized bulletpoints and rehearsed catchphrases. Good job!

[@ShabbaDabb]

I shared a bit of this with my parents. Sparked an overall healthy conversation

[@tealowkunterbunt1005]

As a european biologist I was flabbergasted, when I attended a conference @nih in Bethesda. During a group Visier at the Museum in Washington, Evolution and intelligent Design where presented to us as two equally relevant theories. This was so crazy for all the non-americans. Will never forget

[@Teakbubble]

Watch any video by Jubilee. If Americans are good at one thing. It’s presenting pseudoscience as equally valid as science, bigotry as valid as tolerance, etc etc etc

[@klburt73]

Which museum was this? I'm curious, as I've been to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in DC, though some years back, and I don't recall anything there giving credence to creationism or ID.

[@tealowkunterbunt1005]

@@klburt73 thx for asking. It was the smithsonian Museum. I'm sorry for not remembering in Detail. The incident is from 2013. I remember Entering the exibition via a short tunnel. One the left, our Origin (the correct one) was shown. On the right the "alternativ facts" were presented. I remember talking to a young Lady who worked for the Museum. She told me, that she was not allowed to Talk about her View on the subject. Maybe they changed it since then. Would Like it. :)

[@anniesama5729]

Really depends on the museum and it's affiliations/ownership. I've been to plenty of museums and have never seen anything like that, but I wouldn't be too surprised.

[@GarrisonFall]

I've sometimes wondered if 'Creationism' is favoured over science by any groups in the non-English speaking world.

[@cjthenarhwalking1378]

"Birds cant be dinosaurs because both existed at the same time" Oh so is your whole family dead then? Your parents dont die when you are born, most people have cousins and that similar to the relationship between dinosaurs and birds.

[@Person-ef4xj]

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

[@ronniemillsap]

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

[@MatteoPicone-yy7pk]

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

[@haole08067]

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

[@ronniemillsap]

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

[@prestokrevlar]

I've watched a lot of contentious content created by YECs and those who interact with their position, and by far Clint is a paragon of respectfulness in interacting with the topic. Clint, you're rad.

[@DrachenGothik666]

I don't think they deserve my respect because they lie to back up their position. No respect for liars, sorry.

[@prestokrevlar]

@@DrachenGothik666 I don't disagree. Many people deeply invested in something like the Discovery Institute may be beyond convincing, but I hold out hope for the masses they influence. The more people see someone like Clint discussing the issue, the more people can potentially learn the truth.

[@dorito818]

So much of what you say reminds me of my classes. I like your definition of science (reliability and validity).

[@Captain_Pudding]

It always amazes me how people, who base their lives on a book full of things that nobody observed happening, argue that if you didn't observe it happening, it didn't happen

[@octoBadger]

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

[@XKathXgames]

​@@octoBadger did you get pudding?

[@octoBadger]

So much pudding @@XKathXgames

[@Tarasaurus13]

Yeah I was very confused with that too 😂

[@DaCostaRica48]

@@octoBadgeryay

[@Ladylubber]

Videos like these are an invaluable resource. As someone who grew up in the church and was taught YEC principles from a young age, information as you present it here would have been a boon in my teenage years. Thank you for doing what you do! This is the first video of yours that I’ve watched but I’m excited to check out your other content.

[@christopherwilliams7905]

I hope he does a follow up on his beliefs. It's always bothered me that people walk away from the faith based on things said by a YEC that later get debunked. That stuff isn't in the Bible so they need to stop speculating

[@Simbabbad]

I really appreciate how you're respectful of the points of view you debunk.

[@louisavondart9178]

When you learn that T Rex was covered in feathers, you realise that it was a big, angry chicken.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

not quite

[@kinilas]

I grew up in a small town in the Bible belt surrounded by creationist. Like, my highschool teachers told us evolution was a state-mandated lie. When I was in like middle school I found a book on evolution at a used book store and begged mom to buy it cause I liked the pictures and the idea that animals changed. I had to hide it from the rest of my family. Videos like this I feel are very important for young people, the way you politely correct misinformation without attacking the intelligence of the people who believe it is exactly what I needed in highschool and I can only hope that you are reaching the people who need it now. Great video, 10/10.

[@anna00913]

Thank you for this video! My dad has always been on the fence about evolution, and the more I've sat and listened to him and tried to understand the skepticism, I've realized most of his doubt is coming from misconceptions about evolution, and not arguments that are actually made by mainstream scientists. I'm definitely going to have him watch this video. His experience with scientists seems to be only interactions with very rigid, inflexible people that don't take the time to really understand the skepticism and present arguments in a way that people would be receptive to. I've been able to get him to be more open to the possibility that evolution is true just by correcting the misconceptions and explaining it as clearly as I can, but I'm not a scientist, and I have a feeling this video will really help him to understand what he's skeptical of in the first place.

[@m.c.murdoch6]

Sorry but at the end of the day, it's still nothing more than a theory.

[@anna00913]

@@m.c.murdoch6 when there's tons and tons of evidence that continues to be found that supports a theory, and no evidence found that disproves it, it becomes much more plausible than other theories that have virtually no evidence supporting them

[@daftwulli6145]

@@m.c.murdoch6 tell me you don´t understand what the term theory means in science without telling you don´t understand what the term theory means in science. HOT TIP : there is nothing beyond theories in science , theories explain the how and why of the facts we observe.

[@suran396]

Anna, I was wondering if we could have an update? What did your dad think?

[@hijjak97]

​@@m.c.murdoch6 'Theory' is science-speak for "fact, but it could technically be wrong if reality turns out to be a simulation or something." 'Hypothesis' is science-speak for what we non-scientists call theories.

[@isaaco5679]

I mainly remember ken ham from him claiming his business is either a church or theme park, depending on whether he's trying to evade taxes or make more money. Not to forget that the ark encounter has basically fleeced the local government out of millions.

[@DrachenGothik666]

Just more proof to me that religion is a scam, perpetrated by ruthless, greedy people to prey on the most gullible, the most vulnerable & the most stupid (or the most uneducated) in order to gain money & power. It's all lies.

[@AllanTidgwell]

I love the fact that he was trying to prove the ark was able to be built... and it needed to be fitted with modern materials to make it not collapse under its own weight His experiment disproved itself (though I'd be charitable to Creationists and just assume he's incompetent enough to build it wrong lol)

[@timothyirwin8974]

Not to mention Kent Hovind who has served nine years in prison for not paying taxes on what he describes as "God's money".

[@justamicrowave2572]

The intro clip was an absolute doozy. The speaker hit us with the “how are sharks fish if they eat fish” argument.

[@ZacharyBetz]

This was lovely. Props to you for steel manning the other argument then methodically dismembering it. I hope your content reaches far because your delivery is great. Your explanation of radiometric dating was helpful.

[@cloudwyrms9752]

My dude you have SO much more patience than me, I respect that 🫡 Ex-creationist and now going into evolutionary biology lol, I’m a little quick to dunk on these arguments out of spite since it feels like I’ve “heard it all” but you broke it all down in a way that’s probably easier for audiences less familiar with those arguments to understand. It’s nice to see someone in the field who can reconcile their religion with the hard facts. If I had grown up in a less hardcore creationist, more accepting environment I might’ve still been religious. But oh well

[@ClintsReptiles]

My upbringing turned me into an atheist too. I'm just not anymore.

[@ioakimantonis4687]

What changed that?​@@ClintsReptiles

[@neorock6135]

As someone who believes in God, I don't know why some religious ppl don't accept scientific consensus that is backed by overwhelming evidence. Belief in an almighty & evolution are NOT mutually exclusive!

[@random.3665]

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

[@jounisuninen]

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

[@HOLDENPOPE]

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

[@psibert]

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

[@HOLDENPOPE]

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

[@khaelith8192]

I always learn something new from your videos. Which I find awesome and fascinating.

[@Ometecuhtli]

"If you can't fight science, make them believe it's a religion." -Religious fundamentalists.

[@stanleydog1454]

I mean the tribalism that you find in some scientific circles can certainly seem as dogmatic as what one might find in a religion. I'd say it can go both ways. But I agree-whatever is going on is problematic.

[@JWonn]

It's easier for me to rationalize my faith If I convince myself all opposing viewpoints are equally reliant on faith. You see a lot of this is YEC apologetics.

[@Wh40kFinatic]

​@@stanleydog1454 Example?

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

Evolution IS a religion, and with dogmas.

[@Wh40kFinatic]

@PauloPereira-jj4jv It's science, actually. The foundational Scientific Theory that all of biology is dependent upon.

[@wumbojet]

Although I appreciate that you took their arguments seriously and presented the most charitable version of them, the fact is that answers in Genesis is not acting in good faith. Their arguments are vague because they designed them that way, to mislead and ensnare the victims of their scam. This video was very educational, but their arguments need to be dismantled at their core, because they're not honest ones. But that's my opinion.

[@RazgrizXMG0079]

That's not opinion, that's fact. They're just like the Discovery Institute.

[@chameleonx9253]

To be fair, there are plenty of other channels that completely tear apart the nonsense coming from AIG and the DI. Dapper Dino, Gutsick Gibbon, Viced Rhino, Professor Plink, etc.

[@Uhlbelk]

To do that you need to actually confront their dishonesty and have them honestly admit to their deception. Not likely, so you are too often dealing with honestly misinformed people that need this kind of patient and non-judgmental explanation.

[@flampagan1994]

Indeed, the whole information thing is wrong, they never specify what information, it just sounds very convincing, information could be anything while being nothing, this vagueness allow them to slip out of any scrutiny in the laymans eyes.

[@WillowRat]

I disagree. One of my very good friends was a Young Earth Creationist and a remarkably talented scientist in other areas. He also held a deep faith in a literal translation of the Bible and was fervently religious. Reconciling his faith with science created this amalgamation of belief. In this case, the idea that God created ALL life on Earth, directly is held as fact, or even as an observable truth. I don't think it's fair to call all Young Earth Creationist stories and theories a scam, when the folks who argue them are sincere and often very studied folks. That said. It isn't accurate, and there are other serious issues with certain literal interpretations of the Bible that can do serious harm.

[@idunno3302]

Clint, you're awesome. My kids love your videos even when they are high level phylogenetics. I love your approach to Christianity and evolution. Good luck on your future endeavors!

[@CorgiFrizz]

I had a dear friend who always said "God is a big fan of science. He invented it "

[@CorgiFrizz]

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

[@BionicMilkaholic]

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

[@jounisuninen]

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

[@jeffkilgore6320]

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

[@TsuruchiBrian]

@@BionicMilkaholic So if the bible said that water was made of 4 atoms, we'd just have to figure out a way to make that compatible with our experimental evidence that says water molecules are made of 1 oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms. Maybe we could decide that oxygen atoms are more like 2 atoms to make it work. Everything can be compatible if you try hard enough.

[@MrCanis4]

Falcons and hawks are well-known birds of prey that effectively hunt smaller birds.

[@KrisMaertens]

No,falcons and hawks are dinosaurs😂

[@TatteredCoat]

I appreciate how, while you are entirely willing to point out the flaws and incorrect assumptions in their arguments, you are very polite and not at all nasty about it, which I think makes you all the more persuasive. There are some other science KZbinrs who could learn a thing or two from that.

[@54eopifkg3ehfkj43]

Humans have 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. Of our 46 chromosomes, all of them have 1 centromere, with a single exception: chromosome 2. Chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres, and one of them is deactivated and doesn't do anything. Now the interesting part of this is, when you take human chromosome 2 and line it up next to the chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B, they line up EXACTLY. Not even just in terms of genes; if you look at a base pair-by-base pair alignment, they line up exactly. The centromeres also line up with each other, including the deactivated centromere. Why would humans have a single chromosome that has 2 centromeres, and this chromosome also lines up exactly with the 2 chromosomes of chimpanzees? Why would the 2p and 2q arms of the chromosome be EXACTLY the same as chromosomes 2A and 2B in chimps, along with an entire vestigial centromere that lines up with the centromere of the chimp's chromosome 2B? I've asked this of creationists dozens of times, and they have no answer.

[@andrewjohnson2373]

I grew up in YEC, and for several years have been battling to reconcile science and YEC. I finally found my way in science maintaining my faith…And I’m so happy to have just found this channel

[@jounisuninen]

"battling to reconcile science and YEC" - That should be OK since both theoretical and empirical science confirm YEC. Physics is the basis for all natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science. According to Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false. Laughlin says that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science.

[@hannakierstead289]

Watching this after your post about the comments 😂idk how people can have a problem with this it was GREAT and the fact you explain you’re in groups and discuss this regularly and was able to clearly explain their points of view and without bias compare and contrast the two sides was GREAT! I had no idea creationists were this intense which shows my ignorance to modern religious views. I learned a lot from this !

[@ricklehman8097]

1st time viewer - I LOVED IT !! Your explanation of the difference between natural selection & mutations was very clear. As an atheist, I appreciate your intellectual honesty, & respect whatever beliefs you choose to hold theistically. I usually watch guys like Forrest Valkai, Gutsick Gibbon, Arran Ra, AND I will be watching you as well. Thank you, great content. Subscribed.

[@chadjmoore]

I really appreciate your candor, your calm delivery. The ability to provide intelligent responses while maintaining good decorum was impressive. Whenever I watch a Creationist present their argument it is always emotionally driven, self deprecating and only fits into a neat box. The cannot objectify their own argument when held to scrutiny. It is usually met with a canned response they repeat or hostility that they rights are being infringed. Well done Sir!