Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Creationist Arguments

Stay informed on the latest in science and breaking news from around the world. Subscribe through my link ground.news/clint to get 50% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription this month.
Many people say that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but is this true? What is the evidence for this claim? Well many prominent Young Earth Creationists do not agree with this claim. I recently encountered a fascinating podcast entitled "Why Dinosaurs DID NOT Evolve into Birds". I think we need to listen to and assess the evidence and arguments presented therein to determine if they are correct, that birds are indeed NOT the descendants of dinosaurs.
#clintsreptiles #evolution #creationism
====
Original Video - • Why Dinosaurs DID NOT ...
/ 18ntcuyq6d
Thumbnail Image -
commons.m.wiki...
====
Clint is a professional biologist and educator, but above all, Clint LOVES reptiles and he loves to share that love with everyone he meets. Whether you're lover or a hater of reptiles, you can't help but get excited with Clint!
We post a new video every Saturday morning! So stay tuned!
Be sure to SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
====
PATREON: / clintsreptiles
MERCHANDISE: www.clintsrepti...
SUPPORT Clint's Reptiles by shopping AMAZON here: www.amazon.com...
Schedule a virtual ONE-ON-ONE with Clint! square.site/bo...
====
FACEBOOK: / clintsreptilevideos
INSTAGRAM: / clintsreptiles
TWITTER: / clintsreptiles
WEBSITE: www.clintsrepti...
DISCORD: / discord
====
To contact us for BUSINESS purposes: [e-mail]
====
You guys are so RAD!
====
Fan mail? Yes Please!
Clint's Reptiles
770 East Main Street # 127
Lehi, UT 84043
If you would like to send a LIVE animal - FIRST: please send us an email to make sure we can take it in. [e-mail]

[@ClintsReptiles]

Stay informed on the latest in science and breaking news from around the world. Subscribe through my link ground.news/clint to get 50% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription this month.

[@songoftheblackunicorn666]

Im sitting here shaking my head as I am reading your thumbnail. According to the thumbnail I have have to tell my eight exotic chicken ESA's that they don't exist lol

[@songoftheblackunicorn666]

And for the record I believe in the female and male aspects of God talked about in the Bible and I believe in creation and adaptations that animals and plants had to make and I believe birds are dinosaurs and I am not Jewish or Christian

[@songoftheblackunicorn666]

Ok he is saying that there is a problem with saying that there is a problem with saying that all living things come from a single source. Im not seeing any issue with that concept

[@songoftheblackunicorn666]

Clint I grew up with very judgemental creationist Christians who bought me from my parents when I was two weeks old. They can't handle the truth about the Bible they say that they believe in let alone the physical reality of creation

[@HassanMohamed-rm1cb]

Hey Clint Laidlaw, Why don't you get to think of a suggestion and creating a KZbin Videos all about the 🪲Phylogeny Group Of Beetles🪲on the next Clint's Reptiles on the next Saturday coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍

[@MinhDuong-lg7uk]

As a person of Southeast Asian ancestry, I would like to thank the interviewee for breaking the stereotype that all asians are smart.

[@kathybrem880]

Sure is!

[@Orthosaur7532]

😂😂

[@Aethuviel]

Sorry to break it to you, but he is kind of smart. He's just a liar and a charlatan, which means he has to be smart to be able to manipulate people in the face of such poor arguments.

[@Fallenangel_85]

He's smart enough to twist reality into whatever fits his believe system. To manipulate the narrative so it fits his ideas by just ignoring certain things selectively.

[@secular-world7316]

lol🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@mac5er]

Being ignorant is one thing, blatantly lying another.

[@TonySmurthwaite]

brainwashing is real.

[@conlon4332]

Oh yes, such different things entirely! If you're ignorant and willing to learn, that is nothing to be ashamed of and not your fault. If you are willfully ignorant and refuse to learn, or know full well what you're saying is wrong and say it anyway, that is absolutely something to be ashamed of and entirely your fault. It's always better to be wrong and open to being corrected, especially if you admit you don't know if you're correct, than to confidently spout rubbish and ignore anyone who tries to correct you. Such entirely different things. It's also better to ask questions than to assume you know. This is getting into a bit of a different topic, but so many people will make assumptions that they never question and then they turn into beliefs because they've thought them for so long, and when finally they say something about it in front of someone who can correct them, they are now defensive of this long-held belief. Even well informed, scientifically literate people can end up in this situation very easily, and it can be hard to take a step back and realise you never actually got this information from a good source in the first place, if you got it anywhere.

[@Fade2GrayOG]

Gotta lie to -flerf- YEC.

[@stiimuli]

Beening?

[@Dadofer1970]

That is one of the hallmarks of so many creationist attempts to "take down" evolution. Creationism has, for the most part, had to accept variation. However, they still fall back on variation not being able to "change one kind of animal into another". They can't have that because apes and humans just CAN'T be related. Hanging onto that is why it is also so important that "birds can't be dinosaurs". So, in the source video the speaker does what creationists do with various other pre-human fossils. They just call each one either a human or an ape, based on which one they think they can get away with. Just like the guy in the video, they are usually willing to fudge the facts to do so. In the video he calls an obvious dinosaur a bird, because to a casual observer it looks more like a bird. He calls it what he thinks he can get away with, and fudges the facts to do so.

[@azukalios]

"If dinosaurs had feathers, my beliefs don't work, so obviosly dinosaurs couldn't have had feathers"

[@SeorkMaxx]

Yup, religion, going against evidence for thousands of years.

[@davidhouseman4328]

What's weirdest about this video is you can happily have birds being dinosaurs in YEC, they group animals all the time without evolution.

[@withlessAsbestos]

@@davidhouseman4328YEC leaders seem less interested in being consistent with their own understanding and more interested in sounding different from Evolutionists.

[@LastGoatKnight]

It's like "if planes take off or land in front of me, my belief would shatter, thus planes doesn't take off or land and thus they just chem-trail us 24/7, if not spying on us", also "govrmunt/every scientist in existence bad/liar/brainwashes/spies on you". Surprisingly I saw this pattern WAY many times to now spot. Flerfs do this all the time, at least those that I know of.

[@mapleseraph]

Creationists are SO insulted by the idea that humans might be animals - much less APES - that they'll fight the idea that we evolved in any way they can think up. They need to be special, they need the universe to revolve around them.

[@artistjoh]

Joel Tay did get a Bachelor of Science from a good university in Australia, but he has said that he did that degree in order to increase his ability for arguing apologetics to non-believers. His post grad degree is in theology from a Christian school in Singapore. His father is a creationist pastor, who he said, introduced him to Jesus at age seven. His income comes from being as Creation scientist and Creation communicator at Creation Ministries, and also appears to be deeply involved in Creation home schooling. He is a Bible literalist and thinks that it is the Bible that proves that Adam and Eve were real, Noah and his flood are historic events, and dinosaurs existed with recent history, because the Earth was created according to the Biblical narrative. He thinks the purpose of science is to demonstrate the reality of creation as described in the Bible. He might be evil for the way he poisons young minds, but as a scientist he cannot be taken seriously.

[@ski364]

The university that issued his degree should rescind it to preserve their reputation. He clearly does not understand the scientific process.

[@artistjoh]

@ You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

[@Hurricayne92]

@@ski364 As an Australian i wish they would. Also the fact that when asked where people can learn more he immediatly directs them to his book is a massive red flag.

[@potluckfollie]

I feel like Creationist should share notes more often. Just the other day I saw a video of a Creationist that said Archaeopteryx was 100% a dinosaur and not a bird. Here the creationsist was saying that Archaeopteryx is 100% a bird and not a dinosaur. Kinda makes me think that Archaeopteryx was a creature with both bird AND dinosaur like traits or something...

[@ClintsReptiles]

I'd love a link to that video!

[@potluckfollie]

@@ClintsReptiles I'm having a hard time finding it. It was a video of someone speaking to a congregation so it doesn't exactly stand out when searching through videos. When I find the video I'll be sure to link it. But I do know that they were referencing this paper biblicalcreationtrust.org/pdf/e-origins_vol2_issue1_pp2-8_feathered_dinosaurs-v5.pdf because it lead me down a rabbit hole to learning about the existence of the Hoatzin! kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmjCpJuGf92XpNU It always blows me away that there are so many fascinating animals that still exist which I haven't heard of.

[@kennydavers3946]

It's the same when different creationists say that certain hominin fossils are 100% human and others say they are 100% ape, they are so firmly in the middle of transitional fossils, they can't tell them apart

[@scottthesmartape9151]

It’s basically a bird with the head of a dinosaur

[@cass7448]

They use the same note-sharing system that flerfers do.

[@Geospasmic]

They both were really careful not to talk about Archaeopteryx having teeth.

[@ClintsReptiles]

A most unfortunate little detail. 😬

[@jasonpeacock9735]

Basically, if you remove the feathers, Archaeopteryx has a fairly standard small theropod skeleton.

[@Geospasmic]

@@jasonpeacock9735 yeah which is why it's so weird that he came down on "bird" so early in the video.

[@chesneymigl4538]

How many have heard of the Haotzin, do you think?

[@GalvyTheTom]

@@jasonpeacock9735 we already realized this in the 19th century just by comparing Archaeopteryx's skeleton with Compsognathus and realizing they basically looked the same if you removed Archaeopteryx's feathers. You have to either be trying your damnedest to ignore the similarities, blind, or just really, really stupid. Which, coincidentally, creationists are all three of.

[@lunar9342]

"if feathered dinos don't exist, then evolution is false" is like saying "if there are no red solo cups, then drink glasses are false"

[@cheddarchap]

fr

[@tannerdenny5430]

Exactly.

[@krankarvolund7771]

Yeah, like the idea of birds coming from dinosaurs was one of the first evidence of evolution found after Darwin's publication (there were evidence before of course), and it was shut down immediately by creationnists scientists. A century later when we reproposed the idea, evolution had became a theory and was accepted by all scientists. We didn't need feathered dinosaurs, nor birds descending from dinosaurs to prove evolution. In fact, we didn't even need any fossil evdence to prove evolution, fossil evidence are cool, and explain a lot of how evolution happened. But it's one of the weakest evidence for evolution... and yet creationnists today can't destroy even that XD

[@catpoke9557]

What else I find funny is the idea that if there weren't feathered dinosaurs, birds must not descend from dinosaurs. But... it's been around 150 million years since birds evolved. They could've easily evolved feathers, and then more complex feathers, within that time. They wouldn't have to even descend from feathered dinosaurs to have feathers. That there were other dinosaurs with feathers just adds MORE evidence that birds are dinosaurs. It is not the sole reason why we know this to be true nor is it necessary for it to be true. There could've just originally been scaly birds and then they could've evolved into feathery birds. That isn't what happened, but it COULD have happened. And the bird evolution story, starting from theropod dinosaurs, would've worked just as well. So basically, their premise is that if birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, they didn't evolve at all, and therefore nothing has ever evolved. This is already wrong, but then the evidence they use for their premise (birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs) doesn't work not only because it's not true (feathered dinosaurs did exist, non-avian ones at that) but also because even if it were true they STILL COULD HAVE EVOLVED FROM DINOSAURS. Birds being dinosaurs would work just as well if they were the only feathered animals in existence!!

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@catpoke9557 Even if birds didn't evolved from dinosaurs, they could be a sister-taxon, like pterosaurs, who are also flying tegument-recovered reptiles. There's just too much ressemblances between birds, pterosaurs and dinosaurs to not group them together ^^

[@Marcaline99]

I like how Clint lays out the tactics that this guy is using to spread misinformation, like not answering her questions and spouting nonsense instead. Something people tend to forget is that if you don’t educate yourself you won’t be able to differentiate nonsense from sense as easily. Keep learning ❤

[@Ceretrea]

"Honk, honk, honk. Which is goose for HA HA HA" is the most Clint I've ever heard 😂😊

[@DVZ_365]

Not very far into the video, but something I really appreciate is that Clint also analyzes the questions the interviewer asks. Questions are just as important as answers in debates/interviews.

[@daverobson3084]

Or life in general.

[@DVZ_365]

@ You’re absolutely right!

[@pb5640]

yes because the person asking questions is biased towards their magical, invisible, silent sky daddy😂

[@SkipRogerson]

I think this is a stage interview, following a script.

[@dariuslegacy3406]

When he brought up "feathered dinos" with "lizzard features" I immediately thought of Archyopterix, which he turned around and just denied the existence of.

[@thejagman22]

Sorry, just pulling you up on the point - he didn't deny its existence at all. On the contrary, he rightly refers to archaeopteryx as a 'bird'. The problem is that he had just finished up saying how different birds' tails are from those of therapods, explaining several differences. Then immediately brings up archaeopteryx, calls it a 'bird' (which it is), and completely ignores and doesn't even attempt to explain its obviously therapod-like tail 😂

[@alexjewett7455]

He acknowledged it exists, he just refuses to acknowledge it's a dinosaur.

[@canadianmagpie2053]

archaeopteryx?

[@dariuslegacy3406]

@@canadianmagpie2053 I’m dyslexic and I refuse to elaborate

[@dariuslegacy3406]

@@thejagman22 I welcome your correction, I did rush to comment to be honest

[@whitmerule2753]

It's worth noting that the efficiency of bird lungs has a downside: it is actually a weakness when it comes to bad air (house parrots around aerosol fumes, wild birds around bushfires, canaries in a coal mine). Because they absord so much more of the airborne toxins from a single breath from mammals do, they can be seriously affected or killed by what might not even cause most humans minor respiratory distress.

[@NotSoNormal1987]

Very true. A friend of mine unfortunately had a house fire. And one of her budgies died very soon after.

[@Acidfunkish]

There are some horror stories about people with parrots not knowing that it's unsafe to use certain non-stick pans with their birds around... Especially if they're Velcro birds that need to be involved in making dinner. 😭 It takes more than "common sense" to be a good pet owner. They are not humans; they are vulnerable to various toxins that are safe for humans. Please read up, before getting a pet, or babysitting one!

[@zogar8526]

I liked Clint's approach to dealing with creationists in the beginning. He is still sticking to it. But you can tell he is getting more frustrated. That continuing to give them the benefit of the doubt and steelmanning their arguments is getting harder and harder. This is what happens. As you go deeper in, you realize how much they just flat out lie. They make up anything they want. Ignore anything they don't like. Twist what evolution claims, and say things like "if evolution is real, where is the crocoduck?" Literally asking for a half crocodile half duck creature. You can only take such unserious people seriously for so long.

[@LoFiAxolotl]

If only there was a crocoduck... i would totally adopt one

[@Ahalaya]

​@LoFiAxolotl But, is the Crocoduck the best pet mash-up for you?

[@thedirectorschair1054]

I once had an argument with someone who was claiming that the Earth is hollow and there are holes at the poles where you can climb down inside of it and the entire world is enjoined in a conspiracy to prevent people from finding this out. Eventually I got him to produce his source, which was an 'official' map. The map he had found was a 2d flat map which did indeed have cut out holes at the poles. He was very upset when I pointed out that the reason the map had holes at the poles was because the map had come from a 3d globe which had holes at the poles because that's where the globe had been fixed to the stand... Sometimes I despair of humanity.

[@armata_strigoi_0]

Funnily enough, there was sorta such a thing as a crocoduck lol - _Anatosuchus_ . Interesting little notosuchian from the Cretaceous.

[@zogar8526]

@thedirectorschair1054 I do too. It is sad. Even when these claims start as a joke, there will often be enough people taking them seriously that they become real. It really makes me sad for our future.

[@hylaherping9180]

Bold of this guy to claim Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are birds given they have teeth...they never even addressed that lol.

[@42ZaphodB42]

And microraptor is in fact a dromaeosaurid ... Closely related, but in no way a bird. Even archaeopteryx is sometimes thrown in there. You know, with velociraptor. Even more so, flight has even evolved independently a few times in maniraptora, which is crazy.

[@LaSerpentDEden]

​@@42ZaphodB42 doesn't take much to understand how a mamal like a flying squirrel could eventually fly since it already glides so well. VERY easy to see how reptilian dinosaurs could've done the same

[@krankarvolund7771]

You know that a fossil is transitionnal when creationnists can't agree if it's one thing or the other, this guy say Archaeopteryx is obviously a bird, but I've seen other say taht it's obviously a dinosaur XD Of course the good answer is both like all birds ^^

[@RenaMoonn]

I mean, a lotta birds did have teeth. Just look at the opposite birds (Enantiornithes). For animals like Microraptor though, they're pretty distant and aren't even in the bird clade (Avialae).

[@Aethuviel]

He conveniently and masterfully (for an ignorant audience) ignored or straight-up lied about every single piece of evidence against his belief.

[@levifowler7933]

I think this is the most frustrated I've ever seen Clint.

[@ClintsReptiles]

Well... kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmjLpoqHe6hjmqs

[@scottwells8064]

Was about to mention those awful books 😂 ​@@ClintsReptiles

[@georgerobins4110]

Lmao have u seen the who would win series?

[@iapetusmccool]

​@@scottwells8064Who would win? A creationist or a Chuckwalla?

[@jaroslavkyprianpolak]

​@@ClintsReptiles Hi Clint, great video as always! Please continue! And why creationists do not want birds to be dinosaurs: Because they believe literally in Genesis and birds were created in 5th day and creatures walking on the land 6th day. So they cannot be in the same group according their silly reading od the Bible.

[@vausemike]

She’s not probing his proof, she’s just setting him up to give his answers. She’s complicit.

[@OhioPuppy]

Maybe, but not as shamelessly as she might. Her questions are not terrible.

[@gumslinger11]

It's all obviously scripted. The questions are designed to give the impression that this is a real conversation. They want the viewer to feel like she's pushing back. No one here deserves any credit for anything, except his ability to lie in his second language.

[@pixiesprite9433]

Bad faith actors

[@RyanWelke]

@@pixiesprite9433 like evolution is a religion.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@RyanWelke Evolution is not a religion. Not by any relevant definition - you would have to stoop to gross equivocation and distortions. Evolution does not involve a belief in a deity, does not rely upon any supernatural events or interventions, does not involve prayer, does not have holy books, does not have religious doctrines, does not have sacred or sanctified places, does not have religious customs/behaviors/practices/rituals, does not involve prophecies or prophets, and so on.

[@JadeFoxAlpha]

Wow. People who are new to this channel might not recognize it, but... this is Clint absolutely EXCORIATING this guy. I don't think I've ever seen him this "mad."

[@brookegravitt4117]

clint’s frustration level is OVER 9000 😂. was waiting for him to go super sayan at the end. the intellectual dishonesty displayed by the creationist in the video was next-level.

[@catpoke9557]

Can you blame him? People like this are the reason why some people scoff at Clint for being religious. They're actively harming his reputation by speaking like this

[@brookegravitt4117]

@@catpoke9557 not at all. my goal in life is to be as chill as clint when im super annoyed.

[@janrothkanarski]

I feel like calling someone 'full of hooey' is the Clint equivalent to dropping multiple f-bombs and laying a curse on the guy's entire family line. Wouldn't be undeserved, either.

[@WobblesandBean]

As well he should.

[@mmorgan8742]

I usually just lurk here, but I would like to hop in and say that I am very grateful for this video series. While I don’t need it at this point in my life, there was a time in college when my ex-father-in-law gave me a creationist book and it *really* confused me. At the time there wasn’t a lot of specific information breaking down the problems with these arguments. I’m so glad that you’re breaking these down, Clint, however frustrating it might be. Thanks for pointing out the places where the thinking is unscientific, and where it is straight-up dishonesty. You probably won’t convince any creationists, but you’re going to help people bumping up against creationism think critically and be informed. Especially people like past-me who thought information in books was sacred and couldn’t imagine people lying about science in books.

[@TheBrewster320]

That awkward moment when the guy uses Microraptor as an example of a fossil bird even though Microraptor is a Dromaeosaur…

[@krankarvolund7771]

Creationnists: Birds are not dinosaurs! Look at that dinosaur, it's obviously a bird!

[@JonathonPawelko]

@@TheBrewster320 good observation

[@wanderingspark]

Especially since he defined dinosaurs as having long tails and birds as having short tails. Microraptor clearly as the long dinosaur-type tail. Even by his own definition, microraptor should be a dinosaur.

[@michaellee4276]

This guy uses Semantics as imitation evidence. You can't show him a feathered Dinosaur when he defines Dinosaur as a creature without feathers. Birds aren't dinosaurs because they are birds. It's more missing-link goal-post-moving nonsense.

[@hamfranky]

I was breathing normally until you told me to breathe normally.

[@PokiDave]

As an atheist, it's good to see a science commicater that is also religious and does not miss represent or deny real science. I know there are people that will not change their views on modern science no matter what. However, it is great that you can reach more creationist that may be on the fence since your words would carry more weight with them rather than coming from an atheist.

[@azilbean]

This!!👏👏💯

[@RFC72]

Precisely why I peruse BioLogos website.

[@joelonsdale]

Completely agree. The issue with Christian apologists lying can only be tackled by Christians telling the truth in the right place.

[@autonomouspublishingincorp8241]

Evolution is just creationism with extra steps. These days self described atheistic scientists even use religious rhetoric, arguments, and terminology yet can't see themselves as religious in the same way that religious people don't see themselves as holding those same biased flaws. They both interpret evidences based on their preconceived ideas rather than the shaping their ideas based on the evidences. If it were not so, there would not be nearly as many unified narratives in a field wherein much must be inferred with very little which pretty much guarantees every advancement from that point forward will be building (at least partially) on false premises even without considering the questioning nature of curious creative minds that provoke good science in the first place. Follow either approach to their logical conclusions and both eventually run into the same problem that is separated only by the world view of the observer.

[@RFC72]

@@autonomouspublishingincorp8241 That was certainly a lot of words.

[@laurawright719]

The fact that they used AI art in their showcase was enough to show me that these people are not worth my time

[@gecko-saurus]

Exactly. I've seen Answers in Genesis do the same. I suppose it's the best alternative to showing the actual feathered non-bird specimens we have.

[@OriginalMindTrick]

AI art can be amazing.

[@Poliostasis]

@@OriginalMindTrick I'm sorry but you can't seriously look at AI generated art of dinosaurs and then proceed to call it amazing. The whole idea is that they don't have a real argument and can only use AI to generate things to argue against or argue for them.

[@DasAntiNaziBroetchen]

@@OriginalMindTrick You missed the point. It isn't about whether or not AI art looks good, but whether or not it is accurate. I keep seeing AI art of EXTANT animals that is completely wrong.

[@Thefrogbread]

@@OriginalMindTrickno

[@arved.jeltsch]

0:26 As a biology teacher I know that face all to well - used it myself from time to time... when a student really, really, really messed up with an answer 😂

[@jeffreytan2948]

Yup especially the leap in the conclusion - "If there are no feathered dinosaurs, there is no evolution". Talk about minding the gap

[@metriacantho]

in the class im in the roles are like completely reversed 😂, I brought up evolution to my teacher once and she was like nah and had no evidence backing up hers she was like "im the teacher i know more"

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Best I had as a biology teacher was a year 11 pupil who defined reproduction as the meeting of "game mites" I was tempted to draw a couple of stick figures in the margin, but managed to resist it.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@metriacantho She shouldn't be allowed in the classroom!

[@Thatonedude917]

@@jeffreytan2948 Yeah I love how he has to remind his audience of that, since it makes no sense

[@dolcebelcanto3626]

I'm so grateful for people like you, who use videos of creationists and refute their claims while teaching about evolution, because I grew up strict calvinist, and was still creationist even into highschool, so I've never had a biology class that was evolution-based while I was receptive to it. I've only had an astronomy class since leaving my religion, so I've learned more about biology from these kind of videos than I ever learned in school, and it's especially easy to make the differentiation when it's in this format, plus it's just so interesting. thank you ❤

[@TheWoodler]

Anyone hear "Crouching dinosaurs" and immediately think "Hidden Dragon?" No, just me? I'll let myself out

[@krankarvolund7771]

No, I thought about a T. rex walking crouched and laughed very hard XD

[@Bagelgeuse]

Isn't that how Yinlong got its name?

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@Bagelgeuse Yinlong is a reference to Crouching tiger, hidden dragon ^^

[@WobblesandBean]

Crouching dino, hidden birdie

[@7Z7A7C7K7]

Exactly where my mind went 😂

[@nebraskarooster9244]

I have 3 dinosaurs in my back yard, and they give me eggs every day. This person in the interview obviously has never seen the bones of a chicken's wing before, nor looked at their feet.

[@darklordofsword]

No, he just pretends there's a list of reasons (all of which are nonsense) that make birds not dinosaurs.

[@gecko-saurus]

I have 30+ beautiful flightless birds roaming in my backyard. When I'm looking at their skeletons (the ones that are butchered), I'm scratching my head trying to see how their acetabulum is closed.

[@Sableagle]

I've had a friendly (or maybe just hungry) _Turdus merula_ and _Erithacus rubecula_ perched on my thumb to take mealworms from my cupped palm (not both at the same time, just one at a time, obviously) and a _Falco cherrug_ sitting on my thumb and letting me preen her feathers for me, and yes, "Look at the feet." I did have to disagree with Dr Grant about those feet. The reinforcing ridges along both sides are for a piercing, not slashing, weapon, so no, _Velociraptor_ didn't slash with those toes. It got hold and *squeezed!*

[@kathybrem880]

I have twenty in my house, and you don’t want the bigs ones to bite you!!

[@WackadoodleMalarkey]

My wife raised a Chinese/ African hybrid goose to protect her massive flock of chickens, ducks, and turkeys. The goose went AWOL and defected to the local park next door and joined up with the Canada goose population there, despite our best efforts to contain him. One day I was returning from getting groceries, and this massive, massive, muscular older gentleman with a handlebar mustache was on my porch knocking on my door. I squared up and faced my imminent impending pretzeling, but was delighted to learn that he was there to tell me that the goose (whom I had called Hank Honkhornk) was beloved by the children's environmental education groups (whom they called Harmony) and that they had written and published a children's book in honor of. (I still need to follow up and get the title of that book)

[@ndexohill]

You’re playing chess with a pigeon at this point. You can master the game and study the rules and earnestly execute your winning strategy but a pigeon is just going to crap on the board, knock over the pieces and squawk victoriously. It’s a worldview that’s anchored in voluntary ignorance and selective acknowledgement of “evidence” to prop itself up. It’s also equally rooted in intellectual dishonesty and deception in how they keep repeating arguments that have been thoroughly refuted and intentionally misinterpret or ignore evidence that contradicts the conclusion which they’re attempting to jam into the role of accepted truth. Creationists are not seekers of truth and I know of no worse way for one to waste one’s life.

[@hweidigiv]

Yes, but learning details about science is much more interesting when there's a byplay mimicking the scientific process instead of a dry recitation of facts. It doesn't matter if he can't convince the Creationist making the argument, as long as the audience learns more science facts in the process. From "Thank You For Smoking": " I wasn't trying to convince you, I was trying to convince [the audience]."

[@maple22moose44]

You can't effectively argue with someone who just repeatedly tells straight up lies, like the hip sockets and archaeopteryx apparently having a bird tail

[@hkandm4s23]

It's a sad state of affairs. Despite the abundance of access to expert information, everyone now thinks they can educate themselves with a Google search or podcast on any topic better than experts that study for years and devote their lives to that topic. People will seek the information that confirms their worldview and there will always be someone making quick snappy content designed to confirm that you are right because (insert cherry picked data or misinformation), all your beliefs are correct and you don't need to listen to the actual experts. The algorithm promotes anything that gets clicks so the most extreme views get priority and no one has time for nuance or complexity. For every well researched, nuanced long form video there are thousands of 20 second tik toks of people confidently screaming some simplistic answer that explains why the experts are wrong or lying to you. It's quicker, easier and more emotionally satisfying to hear that you are right and you have the secret knowledge that "they" are hiding from you. And on and on it goes....

[@jonathanschloemer6846]

At this point, a lot of this is about armoring otherwise vulnerable people against the conmen who peddle this stuff. Give them the tools (knowledge) to defend themselves from charismatic deceivers by deconstructing the claims of the deceiver.

[@ziploc2000]

"I know of no worse way for one to waste one’s life." There's always Flat Earth...

[@mosheyahav4234]

As a person of faith (Jewish) myself, I always find it the most annoying when people try to "prove" with pseudo-science or even to lie just to prove that "their" God exists. How weak is their belief that they need to resort to such measures? Keep up the good work, Clint, and stay just as you are - informative, honest and funny.

[@Loctorak]

I like that they flash the qualifications up, and it's literally Master of Theology Master of Divinity Bachelor of Science (like the next rung up the qualifications ladder after finishing high school) Speaker (that's not a qualification) Writer CMI-US (nor is this, it's just some course you can take for ministry writing and afterwards they give you that "credential") So basically here's a guy with like 80% of his time spent studying devoted to religion and (specifically Christian) theology. He's officially no better to comment on these matters than I am, and trust me you do not want to be using any book I write about dinosaurs as a reference material.

[@leebear387]

According to the Creation website he did major in Evolutionary Science and Gentics for his BoS but solely for the purpose of improving his apologetics. Idk how he passed. He's also conviently selling a book lol

[@the_newt_nest]

​@@leebear387 you gotta be selling a book

[@valkeakirahvi]

@@Loctorak Yep. I had to check too, because I couldn't believw this person has real expertise on the topic, and it turns out he doesn't :P

[@lazykbys]

@@leebear387 As a die-hard cynic, I would say he passed since he could use facts and theory to support whatever argument he thinks will benefit him the most, even if he doesn't believe a word of it.

[@christianjacinto7042]

The braincells i regained everytime Clint explained things and debunked these arguments, outweighed the braincells lost listening to the other guy. Love these videos Clint!

[@Alex-tx7ih]

I really appreciate the steelmanning that you do on these, and how you avoid mudslinging. Even when it looks very much like he's not ignorant, the phrasing you use is very appreciated. Please keep these up periodically, and have a fantastic holiday!

[@Websurfer1111]

How can someone be a biologist and say evolution doesn't exist? That's like a baker that says that flour doesn't exist. Absolutely absurd.

[@bubbajenkins123]

You really kicked his acetabulum

[@Squirl513]

😂

[@scottwells8064]

You could even say he perforated it.

[@FrozEnbyWolf150-b9t]

Well, it's pretty close to the sacroiliac joint, so it would definitely feel it.

[@mapleseraph]

Something a lot of people seem to not grasp is that 'dinosaur' is not a species, or a genus, or even a family - the term covers a more diverse spectrum of animals over a much broader span of time than the word 'mammal'. There are organisms under the umbrella of 'dinosaur' that are less related and less anatomically similar than the most distantly related extant mammals. Some dinosaurs were furry, some feathery, some covered in scutes. Some were warm-blooded, some were cold. Some were practically just lizards with vertically aligned hips, some were virtually birds. So really, the word 'dinosaur' hasn't got a lot of utility in discussions about evolution IMO.

[@Alex-tx7ih]

It actually sounds a lot like they might just be fish 🤔

[@mapleseraph]

@@Alex-tx7ih Well yes - It's not quite as wide an umbrella term though.

[@f.u.m.o.5669]

I'm pretty sure there were no truly cold-blooded dinosaurs. The coldest they got was mesotherm.

[@luxurypetscz]

Oh. **throws hands in air** **starts drinking heavily** **begins to rewatch literally every video on dinosaurs**

[@pumaconcolor2855]

Crown mammals are nearly as old as dinosaurs. You and a platypus are probably more distantly related than any two dinosaurs.

[@Cteodorski]

This is an all new low for Clint's reptiles. I can't believe he mentioned pectoral girdles. What about the children??!

[@Cteodorski]

In all seriousness, atheist checking in. I love Clint's evolution videos. We don't have to agree on the god question for me to learn from him and enjoy his content.

[@ClintsReptiles]

They are pretty scandalous. Only turtles are modest enough to keep them inside of their ribcages where they belong.

[@zeppelopod]

@@ClintsReptilestestudines? more like corSETsudines amirite

[@TheKingsRook]

First time viewer here, I absolutely *love* they way you broke this down. Very mild annoyance, but no outright vitriol, just facts and very easy to understand explanations. I like that you didnt dither or mince words, either; when the guy lied, you said that he's lying. It was also refreshing to see you give props to the interviewer for asking very good questions, even though she couldn't (wouldn't?) fact-check him and obviously supported his position.

[@therongjr]

It's so wild to me that Christians--who ostensibly have an entire Commandment about not lying--go out of their way to lie in order to bolster arguments. I really appreciate honest Christians like Clint and Dan McClellan.

[@Colorageous]

As a christian, I agree with you.

[@feliceabbondante5183]

Let's not act as if it's only christians that don't believe in Evolution tho . It's not the only creationist religion or belief . And let's not forget that those Who began studying many of these scientifical thesis were part of the church or christian themselves.

[@Dead_Pool_Rising]

Creationism is not a widely held Christian belief. What you are seeing is a very loud minority or certain sects. Most Christians are not creationists. I was raised in a Christian family. I don't believe on God myself but I can tell you that zero of my relatives believe creationism is real. It has also never been a problem with any of my family members that I don't happen to believe in God. I have never actually met a Christian in real life who is like these creationists... and I've met a lot of Christians. Maybe it's because I live in the UK and not the US, but I doubt it.

[@Dead_Pool_Rising]

Creationism is not a widely held Christian belief. What you are seeing and hearing is a very loud and small minority from certain (insane) sects. I was raised in a Christian family. I do not believe in God myself, but I can absolutely tell you that not many Christians I have ever met believe in creationism, and I have met a lot of them. None of them have ever had an issue with me not believing in God either. Unfortunately the internet just shows you the weirdos. From my personal experience most Christians are not at all like this. It may be because I'm from the UK and not the US, but I highly doubt it.

[@Dekubud]

I grew up religious and I'm glad my mother taught me that Jesus told his followers that the most important law of all is to love oneself and others and to act on that love. She taught us to be suspicious of anyone who claims to speak for Jesus or the Christian god and who doesn't abide by that. I'm no longer a theist, but I think that type of critical thinking should be taught first and foremost. It would protect so many religious people from abusive leaders who fill them with fear and hate so they can better milk them for every penny they have.

[@hylaherping9180]

Not even 10 seconds in and they show a t-rex with an extra pair of limbs like bat wings...how dumb do they think their audience is? They don't seriously expect us to believe that if feathered dinosaurs existed, they'd have 6 limbs?! I hate creationists so much. All they do is lie about science.

[@randomman5592]

They created those images with AI slop which is worse if you think about it 😭😭😭

[@hylaherping9180]

@randomman5592 I know right? I wonder what they told AI to generate to give them two wings and 4 legs.

[@feuerling]

​@@hylaherping9180 "create an image of a dinosaur with bird wings" "one crappy dragon, coming right up!"

[@darklordofsword]

They know exactly how dumb their audience is. They are banking in it, in fact.

[@angelman906]

These are the same people that voted for Trump “because of the grocery prices” if presidents could easily affect grocery prices don’t you think a lot more presidents would have done that to get re-elected?

[@BL-yj2wp]

That‘s not an argument, that‘s just a lie.

[@Deadpool3E]

56:12 Hold up! Wait a minute! He just mentioned Microraptor as a bird! Microraptor! The four-winged Drome related to Deinonychus and Velociraptor! Which he inferred aren't birds! Let that sink in!

[@Father-of-Xerxes]

This is so hard to watch with how he just lies about everything when its convenient. Kudos to Clint for watching it and responding to all of them

[@athletic8842]

I have to admit, that, while i hate this type of videos since the creationists always sound more like rage bait than anything else, the explanation of how birds breath was a 100% worth going through 45 min of creationists lies. That part to me was insanely well explain and interesting.

[@almightyshippo1197]

That's why I enjoy it when qualified people respond to creationist claims, it brings up some interesting topics that I probably wouldn't have sat down and learned about otherwise. ^_^

[@andy-the-gardener]

yes, i've never seen it explained this well before either. well worth having to wade through the creationist guff to get this gem of a description. i knew bird lungs had an air circuit but didnt know how it worked. but the contra flowing blood in the lungs theory was totally new to me. surely the 'bird lung' not only explains dinosaur flight but may account for their high metabolism/growth rate, great size [esp in sauropods] and ability to out compete mammals. clint needs to explain reptile/dinosaur excretion [ie the kidney stuff] as it appears superior to how mammals do it. as were dinosaur teeth. a hadrosaurs teeth were way better than say an elephants in being continually replaceable. in fact quite a lot of things were better 'designed' in the dinosaurian line than in the furies. according to recent discoveries, even bird brains appear to be wired up better. maybe god just preferred dinosaurs! makes you wonder why He wiped them out in a giant flood really. joking.

[@CainXVII]

I just got there. Super interesting

[@pn5625]

​@@andy-the-gardener I could be wrong but afaik the reason that mammals don't have continually replaced teeth like that is so that our teeth can actually come together so we can chew, which makes our digestion more efficient

[@andy-the-gardener]

@@pn5625 some dinosaurs like sauropods did not chew [which in fact made them the most superior of all herbivores ever because they use their guts to do the chewing] ] but other groups did chew, and were extremely good at it and had tvery advanced grinding teeth both better than mammals and constantly replaced. no worn out molars for them. and i'd argue carnivorous dinosaurs teeth were better than mammalian predators too. but my point is dinosaurs had a whole suite of physological advantages over mammals which allowed them to dominate large animal niches for 150 million years before fate dealt them a bad hand. i recomment 'the dinosaur heresies' by robert bakker if you have not read it. one of the best grown up books on the subect ever written for the layman. bakker popularised the current notion that dinosaurs were not 'reptiles' but extremely active animals, comparable to or even superior in many respects to the mammal class. the 'bird lung' being perhaps their greatest advantage over mammals. i would argue it was the primary reason sauropds grew so big, and trex could be such a huge bipedal animal. such things simply need a very high metabolism.

[@KadenSlinker]

*Creationists* “There are no feathered Dinosaurs.” Me: “Are you sure about that!”

[@mhdfrb9971]

Birds: are you sure about that?

[@rh3465]

I was 1 minute earlier than you.

[@Orthosaur7532]

Hello there

[@Mag3.1415]

@Orthosaur7532 I was going to comment the same thing, hello fellow feathered dinosaur.

[@Orthosaur7532]

@@Mag3.1415 Hi there

[@Deadpool3E]

50:33 The collagen fiber hypothesis is a copout used by Creationists as a way of dismissing integument. It really doesn't help that those "collagen fibers" also preserve melanosomes. Those are organelles found in pigment cells in integument like feathers and scales that are responsible for coloration. Not only do we know that those fibers were really downy feathers, but we've since learned what color those feathers are. Also worth adding that Sinosauropteryx was one species in a whole assemblege of an ecosystem known as the Jehol Biota which made up thr Chinese Yixian and Jiufotang Formations. This layer is a laggerstatte that carries high quality fossils of various animals, including many dinosaurs and their integument. Among them being Psittacosaurus, Beipiaosaurus, and Yutyrannus.

[@Llortnerof]

Lagerstätte. Literally translates to terms like "deposit" (e.g. ore deposit - Erzlagerstätte) or "storage facility" but also "campsite".

[@valkeakirahvi]

Joel Tay does NOT have a degree, at least not any relevant degree, in evolutionary biology. He is a master of theology and has a bachelor's science degree, which Creation Ministries describes as: "In 2008, Joel completed a Bachelor of Science from the University of Queensland (Australia), majoring in two fields of studies: Evolutionary Biology and Genetics, with the sole purpose of increasing his own apologetics arsenal to the non-believer. " Um, yeah. Anyway, a bachelor's degree doesn't make you even close to an expert in anything. But see how they misrepresent his expertise by not naming his degree.

[@AIopekis]

Not surprised at all. That's kind of exactly what I expect from these types. They don't get the degree for the purpose of education, they do it to try and make themselves appear to be an authority figure by saying "I have a degree in this thing."

[@valkeakirahvi]

@AIopekis Yep, exactly why I went and checked, because they misrepresent their expertise so often 😅

[@dondragmer2412]

Par for the course, misrepresenting the credentials of their advocate. They'll do it in their misleading video interviews every time.

[@trunkage]

As a person who did a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland a few years earlier than him, I know that what he received was a cursory, low level courses that most other Bachelors around the world have

[@markwynne725]

Yes. Almost like they are being dishonest by saying that he does.

[@WaterShowsProd]

Don't congratulate her on asking those questions. She is asking questions from a script that he provided. He wrote up questions that people would use to counter his argument, just to shoot them down with nonsense, and then scripted questions that would arise from the nonsense, so he could quiet them with more nonsense. She actually read one of the questions wrong. She should have asked, "Do they walk upright?" but she said, "Don't they walk upright?" which grammatically didn't follow what she was asking. He may have written it with that mistake, but nobody corrected it, and she wouldn't have worded it like that in the moment, thus it is clear evidence that her questions were entirely scripted.

[@user-tt8xf9td6b]

Judging from the numerous other mistakes that he made...

[@MegaMark0000]

When you hear her say "we think something because it's in a movie" you know that it's not a real conversation and nobody on that show is going to be intellectually honest. Dont give them your energy.

[@russellmillar7132]

This is true. I think it is a sad, unfortunate, dangerous, and not surprising truth. Many people I've interacted with have what I call "shallow literacy". That is to say they may have only what they have seen in a movie, tv, or video to draw upon when they think about, say, dinosaurs, space travel, historical events, medical procedures and of course evolution. I have family members who only know what they have seen in literally the movie Jurassic Park about dinosaurs. I believe this is, to some degree, by design. Being educated beyond a surface level of detail in many areas, except sports is considered nerdish, and know-it-all(ish). I know many marginally educated people (usually men) who can rattle off stats of players in multiple leagues, divisions, and conferences of numerous sports, but have never read the constitution, and couldn't accurately list the gases that comprise our atmosphere. It's often ridiculed to demonstrate any depth of knowledge about complex topic. But that's what we got today.

[@randallbesch2424]

@@russellmillar7132 the wide swath of anti-intellectualism in the USA. It holds us back.

[@RedXlV]

Especially since movie dinosaurs are almost exclusively *not* depicted as feathered, due to the pervasive influence of Jurassic Park (which released in 1993, before the idea of feathered dinosaurs was well known outside of actual scientific circles).

[@kimiroar2644]

I can't thank you enough for this content. Especially for presenting it in a way that's in good faith and thorough in dismantling the arguments of the other side. For me it really feels often like the other side isn't arguing in good faith and or being dishonest in their basis. But how you're able to cut through exactly what points they're trying to make is amazing and so well done!

[@kimiroar2644]

Got to the point where the 'interviewer' said "in this secular world" yeah... knew none of this was presented in good faith.

[@LoFiAxolotl]

When i was younger i was dating a Paleontologist (well he was getting his PhD at that time) he quite liked the original jurrasic park movies... mainly because he kept telling me what animals the sounds the dinosaurs made were coming from... apparently the Raptors were Galapagos Tortoise mating

[@shroomyk]

I'm old enough to remember when youtube had a sort of trend of pet turles humping people's shoes making funny sounds. Sorry your comment just reminded me of it. lol

[@PeterParker-fx9dl]

When I was a kid I thought the Trex in Jurassic Park movies sounded like big pieces of metal rubbing or bending.

[@FrozEnbyWolf150-b9t]

The funny thing about the dinosaur sounds is that the T. rex would most likely not be roaring loudly when chasing something she considers prey. Predators typically do not want to announce their presence and scare off everything, regardless of how big the predator is. If you consider something like a tiger that occupies a similar ecological niche, it's not going to roar while running down a deer. The roars and other calls would be directed at competitors, or members of similar species, to get them to back off.

[@Sableagle]

I would have recorded modern birds and played them slowed down. Imagine the call of an ordinary European pheasant, that _buuurrrrk-buck!_ call, two octaves lower, four times as long and LOUD, or the display flight song of a skylark played at one eighth speed on a pipe organ.

[@cokolwiekwpisane]

considering birds are dinosaurs, they might have made similiar sounds. imagine trex squawking or quacking. or maybe listening to singing raptors

[@AuroraExotics]

I would love to see Clint do a live debate with these folks, but I doubt any of them would accept an invitation lol. Great video!

[@bumfricker2487]

there is frankly no situation where they ever cede any ground or listen to what Clint is saying. At best they flatly ignore him and never publish a video of their discussion; but a falsely edited moment where Clint gets "triggered" or "epically owned" is far more likely.

[@katiek.8808]

I would like to see this guy debate Jay Dyer. This way you will all be able to see the pile of sand you stand on.

[@AuroraExotics]

@katiek.8808 Science works by observation, not argument. That would be a fascinating (and frustrating) debate lol

[@katiek.8808]

@ so how much evolution have you observed?

[@katiek.8808]

And how many millions of years have you observed?

[@additive8924]

Great job of explaining how he defeats his own argument. I could recognize it, but I wouldn't be able to articulate it so well. 👍

[@Raesear]

Clint, you're a very lovely and kind man, but the woman doing the interviewing is in on the grift. Her questions are pre-planned with the guy just to make it seem like an interview instead of a lecture. She has no interest in pinning him down and getting real answers. She's just setting him up so it seems like he's answering potential challenges. Also, neither of them care that they're lying. He's obviously done enough research that he is not ignorant, but he is marketing himself as an anti-evolutionary intellectual. It's a grift and he's expecting that the people he's grifting will just follow along if he sounds smart and professional enough.

[@Illvon]

Thank you Clint, for educating my generation! Your service does not go unnoticed or unappreciated🙏

[@matyaskassay4346]

Also, as a person who handled living birds quite a few times in ringing camps, I can say that at least songbirds have quite a lot of flexibility in their hip joint, so it's not like birds can't move their thighs like dinosaurs, they just don't have to when they walk.

[@Tlew9964]

I was diagnosed with ankylosising spondylitis years ago. Wasn’t until you described hip anatomy of dinosaurs did I know the reason my disease had this name. Thanks Clint!

[@TheBagarali]

After all those years I learned one thing, it is waste of energy to discuss anything with these creationists.

[@Sucellusification]

This is proof that being spiritual doesn't make one virtuous. The man in red is lying, or at least ignoring the truth for his own sake, because he identifies with his own ideas, and fears confronting or modifying them. It's probably a group dynamic, too. In any case, it's very sad to see such ignorant people, and even sadder knowing that it is by choice. As a pagan, I know that there are plenty of normal religious people, like Clint, that accept science, though they might be skeptic, but at least they recognize what's truthful. But these Christian communities where they identify evolution with atheism and try to refute whole fields of biology, are just venomous, and even poisonous if you try to bite them back, if you know what I mean. Please follow any religion or spirituality that makes you feel full of joy, but never disregard the known truth about the world. 🌱

[@Didomate]

Must be why Ezic wants him dead

[@DeinosDinos]

You give that man far too much credit. He’s likely been given a financial incentive to purposefully lie about the science in order to give other people the permission structure to also deny science altogether. Just another grifter really.

[@vermis8344]

"There are no feathered dinosaurs" "Birds haven't got a perforated acetabulum" "Archaeopteryx had a pygostyle tail" Proverbs 19:2 - 'Even zeal is no good without knowledge, and he who hurries his footsteps misses the mark.' 🤦‍♂️

[@gecko-saurus]

This hits the mark on the hypocrisy in this interview. Great verse reference.

[@annewyckoff9720]

Thank you! As a Christian, I have no desire for intellectual dishonesty in evaluating the scriptures. I also don't understand denying evolution. The Bible is not a biology textbook, that was never its purpose.

[@TheRonaldbaxter]

If you are a fanatic you will believe anything

[@siegfriedmorse3129]

"I still don't know why creationists need birds to not be dinosaurs" - That's because they're creationists, i.e. deny evolution, so they want to deny that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It's one of many lines of fallacious arguments that they come up with to deny that evolution is a real thing. When they don't really need to do that to demonstrate the truth of their claim, which is creation. They don't need to disprove evolution, they just need to demonstrate the truth of their claim that creation happened. But they can't do that because they also can't demonstrate that a creator exists or has existed. So they just attack evolution hoping to convince people who don't know better, to say "if evolution is false, then how else would things have come to be this way", and using that fallacious reasoning, to conclude the existence of a creator. Oh, and they also make a bunch of money from religious institutions, so they have a professional interest to be dishonest.

[@cokolwiekwpisane]

yeah, even if you prove evolution wrong, there might be different way creatures come from each other. also even if the birds didnt evolve from dinosaurs, they might still have evolved from something else and there other examples of evolution to disprove

[@thejagman22]

@cokolwiekwpisane Different ways of coming from one another? Like Pokémon?.. No wait, that's evolution too.

[@bumfricker2487]

@@cokolwiekwpisane it may sound semantic but the most scientifically accurate way of describing it is that birds *are* theropod dinosaurs, not that they "evolved from" them. It's like saying that mammals "evolved into" humans - sure we're different (looking, and genetically) from many of our mammalian ancestors and from other living mammals, but we still are mammals and no amount of evolution can change that.

[@siegfriedmorse3129]

@@cokolwiekwpisane Your statement is contradictory. You can't say that something might have evolved from something else if evolution has been proven false. The creationist argument is that creatures were created in the form they are by a creator and that they don't evolve from other forms.

[@FashionBarbie]

@@siegfriedmorse3129 spontaneous genetic mutation is a way in which new creatures could be born from one another without it being evolutionary. I believe this is the sort of thing they were trying to say.

[@josephmaton1393]

I've been a fan for a few years and seeing my name in the credits for the first time brought me so much joy. Such a worthwhile channel to support - Keep up the great work Clint!

[@kermitthorson9719]

their AI images to start this off that had Hexapod Dinos triggered me.

[@feuerling]

Exactly. That's a dragon, not a dinosaur.

[@turkoositerapsidi]

​@@feuerlingBut pokémon tyrantrum is a dragon and dinosaur, so what you has to say about that one?

[@darklordofsword]

​@@turkoositerapsidi that Tyrantrum is fictional?

[@turkoositerapsidi]

@@darklordofsword Isn't every dragon that isn't a monitor lizard fiction as well?

[@necroseus]

​@@turkoositerapsidi I would say that Pokemon types are not about evolutionary decendancy, but instead are the type of magic that a particular creature wields. Tyrantrum uses arcane dragon magic, and so is dragon type B)

[@Hailfire08]

"people believe dinosaurs had feathers because of movies" is such a baffling lie. Movies disproportionately present dinosaurs as big scaly reptiles - feathers are almost lacking. Take Jurassic Park's (and sequels') "velociraptors" for example. Dinosaurs that we know for a fact had feathers, but which are shown as scaly because they look cooler that way. Why are you lying, creationists? Is it worth it?

[@dondragmer2412]

Not all dinosaurs had feathers, except for birds, birdlike ones, and even some of the non-avian ones. Even some hadrosaurs and ceratopsians may have had feather-like filaments.

[@RedXlV]

Seriously, they mentioned Jurassic World (which doesn't contain even a single feathered dinosaur) as an example of movies showing feathered dinosaurs. Because as part of a franchise, they needed the dinosaurs to look the same as they did in the original Jurassic Park of 1993.

[@laserfan17]

@@RedXlVThey probably mentioned the Jurassic World franchise, which does include at least three Genera of dinosaurs they present with feathers in the most recent movie (Jurassic World: Dominion): Moros, Therizinosaurus and Pyroraptor. They also give the Cretaceous Tyrannosaurus “Rexy” feathers in the prologue they released for KZbin.

[@RedXlV]

@@laserfan17 I only watched the first two movies of Jurassic World, and I don't remember any feathered dinosaurs in those.

[@laserfan17]

@@RedXlV You didn’t watch the third one (Jurassic World: Dominion) then. They add three feathered dinosaurs there, plus a feathered T.rex for the prologue that they released on KZbin.

[@cristobalrebolledo789]

It's amazing how much can I learn from a video like this, I mean I thought I knew enough about Dinosaurs and birds, but there are always new facts that surprices me! Amazing video Clint! Would there be a video about some dromeosaurid best pet? Hahaha

[@hellbreakfast]

Hey, Clint. Merry Christmas. Thanks for doing your thing over the years.

[@chriswatson7965]

A few points - Joel seems have been self-taught using the internet with the fixed belief that birds aren't dinosaurs. His knowledge of Sinosauropteryx comes from a creationist website. - Joel also seems to be heavily focused on feathers for some reason and seems to have decided that any creature with discernable bird-like feathers is a bird and any creature without that characteristic is not a bird. But then he says that because there are no dinosaurs with feathers (and there won't be by the way he has defined them), evolution can't be true. This is disingenuous - the bird respiratory system is only half of the story for their ability to exercise at altitude. Not all birds can fly at altitude. The binding characteristics of hemoglobin need to be optimised also, such as in geese and vultures. In fact mammals with modified hemoglobin live quite happily at altitude. Most human hemoglobin is designed to work most efficiently at sea-level so most people really struggle at altitude. It's the combination of the bird respiratory system and the modified hemoglobin that enables birds to really thrive at altitude. - Following on from above. The dinosaur/bird respiratory system is, in my opinion, almost certainly the sole reason for the complete dominance of dinosaurs in the mesozoic, and why they were not dominant or even successful in the water. - Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but I didn't think that there was any substantive difference in the legs between a bird and other theropods, other than the femur/tibia ratio and the angle coming out of the pelvis for centre of balance issues. When modelling theropod motion I understand that bird locomotion has been used as a baseline. - Sinosauropteryx - the claim markings represented a liver and diaphragm were not well founded and have subsequently been disputed in later reanalysis. As you point out the claim of markings representing feather like structures is well founded, and has survived reanalysis.

[@shoebill4902]

the beginning made my brain decompose

[@green_toast9279]

And did the decomposing material look like feathers or collagen fibers to you?

[@FrozEnbyWolf150-b9t]

But did it make your brain say, "Ouch"?

[@janzizka9963]

As a lifetime zoology nerd and also a christian, I never understood what point does it have to believe in creation by God, yet disregarding and questioning His methods. Evolution is a pretty amazing system to observe.

[@SeorkMaxx]

Because they wish to hold on to their book as being 109% true, so giving up a tiny bit drops the whole pretend. They are invested in their believe, so anything that goes against that must be false.

[@gecko-saurus]

​@@SeorkMaxx More specifically, they try to articulate their _interpretation_ of scripture as infallible and that Christians are required to hold to it.

[@cokolwiekwpisane]

I found great explaination in book "darwins god".. there are people that believe that God is just explaination for undiscovered things. so as the science progresses, they argue, logically it would mean that it would remove need for God more and more. while evolution itself doesnt contradict the Bible, they decided with its discovery, we found the origin of life, so we have no need for God. that spawned the atheists. creationists are reaction to that, working on the same fallacious basis but for opposite direction. so in their opinion God need to be defended from science, not realising that explaining God's creation doesnt take anything from Him. oh and that in fact their actions have opposite effect, leading some people to believe that religious people are stupid

[@MrCusefan44]

The answer is in how fundamentalist Christianity started. Post-Civil War, there was a theological modernist movement mostly in the north which sought to incorporate scientific discoveries like evolution into their theology. That on its own is great…but it also advocated that the Bible contained errors, no miracles ever occurred, and God manifests Himself through human social development. Basically extreme progressive Christianity. Fundamentalism was a reaction to that, starting around 1878 mostly in the south. Some of their goals were admirable, but undoubtedly they took it too far by insisting on a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis. Some of why it remains such a hot button topic is fundamentalists are convinced if they accept evolution, it’s effectively accepting the most extreme version of progressive Christianity.

[@aeyelashbug6311]

Exactly like if you want to believe in God then just believe God designed evolution to work the way it does. Same thing with christian anti-vaxxers and similar medicine deniers who only pray for getting cured. Maybe consider that the medicine is the answer to your prayers

[@tobilikebacon]

Yes he made my video idea! thank you so much clint this really made me and my friends happy

[@shroomyk]

Did not know I was about to learn the birds can breathe through their bones. Dang.

[@AlpMan444]

I got permanent brain damage in the first 30 seconds

[@turkoositerapsidi]

That is unfortunate my friend.

[@phoenixmercurous884]

Dear god Clint, you have the patience of a saint. I was ready to quit after the "evolutionists think therapods evolved into birds" (no, just one lineage) and "therapods have small arms and big legs". Now I'm just past the point where he lied about lungs. I'm no expert on dinosaurs, but from this channel and the Your Dinosaurs Are Wrong channel I do know dinos had highly pneumatized skeletons and bird-like lungs. There are apparently tell-tale marks on the skeletons of some large therapod (or several, I listen to that channel in the background so the details don't really stick). Edit: Isn't there evidence that even sauropods dinosaurs had pneumatized skeletons? I thought I heard that was part of how their necks managed to get so darn huge. More like the scaffolding of a crane than a solid rod of bone. From what I've gathered, "hollow" bones is the "lie to children" version of it, not the version actual experts in the field use. Education is hard and the world is really complex, so there's lots of "lies to children". For example, electrical energy isn't actually transmitted by electrons moving along wires, especially in AC power. We just tell people that's how it works because the real answer (plasmons, I believe) is way more difficult to explain.

[@petrairene]

The small theropod dinosaurs probably developed these high performance lungs because of their extremely active lifestyle. It was later very convenient for their bird descendents who also have a high performance lifestyle.

[@rh3465]

@@petrairene Yes, these theropods were normally Endothermic and highly active.

[@L3tHaLMaN1A-l8u]

Universal Bone structure. Literally the only thing that will break all evidence of birds not being a dinosaur. Raptor is a dinosaur..and if you think about it. If you just kinda move some part of a Pigeons bone anatomy and make it stand more like a therapods, then boom. By that tweak. You got yourself a Pigeonasaurus. *By bone similaritied anyway.

[@DrygdorDradgvork]

Patience of a *Latter-Day Saint 😉

[@SupahGeck]

I feel like so many issues stem back to the numerous "lies to children" we teach in school. I spent 12 years in sciences classes only to find out they simplified everything almost to an anti-understanding. For instance, the simple Punnett square laying out geno/phenotypes, being expressed as a very simple binary of dominant/recessive traits, making it seem like one gene at birth controls your eye color instead of a few genes coming together to trigger various things that cascade down to determine your final eye color. But most people only learn the dumbed down version they got in school, and now they get suspicious about the blue-eyed baby that shouldn't be possible with simple Mendellian genetics. Was it infidelity or is it yet another "lie to children"

[@abuelo4977]

The war against science rages on. Thank you for your service.

[@spracketskooch]

That's a little dramatic, my friend. Reminds me of the annual "war on Christmas".

[@RyanWelke]

@@abuelo4977 guessing you’re claiming the evolution religion is science.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@RyanWelke Nope, not what abuelo4997 is claiming.

[@RyanWelke]

@ this is a video about evolution religion, so yeah he is assuming evolutionism is science .

[@shastawolfamute2203]

Im guessing this guy doesnt know what a Hoatzin is. I dont think the creatuonist argument can find any way to explain why hoatzin chicks have their little clawed fingers that look so finger-like. Id like to see someone try to explain how, considering theyre some of the most ancient living species of bird.

[@necroseus]

A lot of chicken wings have a claw, too :)

[@kalantino3596]

If there’s an audience who wants to hear their beliefs validated, there will be a grifter there to capitalize on it

[@AlbertaGeek]

Looking at you, pseudoarchaeology believers!

[@BevvyTV]

"educate"

[@ReptilesRule16]

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

[@pourcelaine]

no but this is what makes Clint so *astronomically* good at combatting these kinds of misinformation campaigns. He has the patience of a literal living saint, he is somehow capable of carefully and judiciously navigating all the intentionally obnoxious obfuscation and misdirection without becoming perturbed by the reflexive emotional reactions that such nonsense normally provokes in someone as passionate and experienced in a science under impotent attack as Clint is in evolutionary biology. He’s got a level of chill that few people will ever truly know, and even fewer will ever make such noble use of.

[@draco949]

Thank you Clint and crew. Great science communication and education. Debunking can be frustrating, but you do it with grace.

[@RenoReborn]

What would you think if you were the guy trying to drown the Goose.... I'd be setting a get rich quick scheme "TRY AND DROWN THE IMMORTAL GOOSE"

[@timeshark8727]

Expecting a creationist to look at all the evidence available rather than cherry-pick only what they think helps them while pretending the rest doesn't exist (or actively arguing that specific pieces of evidence are fake/false) is like expecting a pig to sprout wings and fly over the moon.

[@bumfricker2487]

yes; quite frankly they wouldn't be creationists if they weren't interested - no, if they didn't *have a vested interest,* be it financial, governmental, emotional, another or all of the above; in engaging with these arguments in bad faith.

[@RyanWelke]

@@timeshark8727 you just explained the believers in the evolution religion.

[@timeshark8727]

@@RyanWelke lol, sure, sure. Its amazing how long the post correcting all the obvious errors in your sentence would need to be.

[@RyanWelke]

@@timeshark8727 except it isn’t wrong evolutionists do whatever they can to push their religion into tax supported schools, universities and museums, such as cherry-pick evidence, make things up and use lied to do it.

[@A3319]

Even if there were no feathered dinosaurs, that wouldn't disprove evolution .-.

[@WXRST99]

Man you may not see this but I've been watching your content for quite a while now and I just have to say, I absolutely love the way you handle these reactions to arguments by people with different beliefs.

[@TyroneBruinsmaFilms]

Creationists: where the degree is the degree to which you lose your braincells

[@shepherddog1199]

This is only true of young-earth creationism. I'm a theistic evolutionist.

[@PeterParker-fx9dl]

It's the degree playing a degree disguised as another degree.

[@celathewhitewolf6513]

Damn first time seeing a video of yours basically when it was officially viewable on youtube! What a time to be here

[@kronusaerospace8872]

The YEC resistance to the evidence of feathered dinosaurs honestly perplexes me. I understand that both modern dinosaurs (birds) and ancient dinosaurs having feathers implies relatedness, and that this is not a comfortable concept in the YEC view. However the same could be said of countless features shared between animal groups. To stick to archosaurs however, both birds and ancient dinosaurs have scales (not to mention crocodilians). This fact doesn't keep YEC proponents up at night. They understand that a common designer leads to common design, for this and many other features. So why the resistance to dinosaur feathers? Why choose this hill to die on? I should allow some nuance in here by acknowledging that some YEC organizations do accept the evidence of feathered dinosaurs and publish the facts for their readers. However the ones that do not are misleading their readers and shooting themselves in the foot.

[@adam2802]

I think the difficulty is in their approach to knowledge, they have a terrible relationship with their scripture: deciding what something means, then bending over backwards to justify it and ignore anything that counters that world view, it not very interrogative or self-reflective, and a good chunk of that inevitably has to be defended against from outside views contradicting it. But the scientific consensus shifts and changes and very often isn't much of a consensus at all. If you've just spent a lot of time coming up with reasons why dinosaurs actually only went extinct during the Great Flood and weren't around millions of years ago and were just another group of animals... (and also arguing that your inflexibility is a pro not a con) then having science turn around and come up with new information that further insists that dinosaurs evolved into modern anything, they have to come up with More reasons why that can't be the case, why they are right, have always been right, and don't have to change their views. They could just as easily say 'no, God just gave them similar features' but it's a highly unsatisfying answer if you're trying to persuade yourself or someone else, if you can make an hour long film full of waffle, that makes it sound like you have lots of facts and arguments--even if it's just Bullshit. It Also means they'd have to admit all the imagery of scaley dinosaurs the YEC do use are wrong and need updating and if That is wrong and needs updating 😮 then what else??

[@austinallison4707]

Clint you are literally the only person who could have gotten me to watch this guy. I stop watching things after so many mistakes that I believe they are just lying 😂. Your awesome and keep up the good work my friend

[@Kaltronix]

On top of all the frustrating things this guy is saying, that weird feathered dinosaur animation was definitely made with AI. As an artist, that adds an extra layer of “oh this guy sucks” on top of this shitty cake

[@Firesnake905]

The reason creationists can't accept birds came from dinosaurs is because of the Genesis creation story. Birds came before dinosaurs (land animals) on the 5th day, land animals came on the 6th.

[@feuerling]

I'm wondering how those people classify flightless birds, which are either exclusively land animals or semi-aquatic. What's a penguin to them? Bird? Land animal? Fish? What about pterosaurs? Are they "birds", like bats, which are mentioned as birds in their holy book? We should get a group of creationists with different opinions on the classification of some specific animals and have them fight it out on stage.

[@davidhouseman4328]

There's no issue there, or if there is whales and ostriches are also an issue.

[@turkoositerapsidi]

​@@davidhouseman4328Or bats

[@Evan-k]

The reason is that they're in a cult known as christianity

[@the_newt_nest]

​​@@davidhouseman4328 whales are an issue, I've heard creationists argue against whales being descended from a land-dwelling ancestor. Given that creationists accept biological adaptation nowadays, I don't see why it's an issue. Why couldn't they have gone into the water after they were created? And why couldn't dinosaurs start as land animals and go into the sky?

[@artoriapendragon3234]

I am a christian, and I find the whole concept of Creationists to be utterly ludicrous.. they put such a limit on God's creativity by denying evolution.. Even the writers of the bible never meant for people to take it literally, especially if you know how Hebrew text and jewish text of the time is meant to be written.. none of these creationists ever learned to be a scholar, they were simply afraid of their beliefs not being completely literal, because for some reason they have to believe that if the bible isn't literal, it isn't true, and that's such a WEAK foundation to base faith on. I see evolution as the proof of God's amazing power, not the disproof of it.

[@arthurfilipe7380]

They think Christianity is so fragile that saying that something in the Bible is not 100% true is enough for the entire religion to collapse. As a non-literalist christian these people are bafoons

[@radiak55]

I respect you for sharing that. Personally, as a recent atheist and forever skeptic I feel that it's important to really hone into what we consider to be true and the process we use to determine it. Although as an anti-theist, I don't advocate for people to not be religious. What my stance is that we should be always cautious with the systems that undermine what we know and have been useful like the scientific method and our knowledge of the world. We need to constantly better our understanding but also not be a pesudo skeptic that falsely tries to question everything but never hold what's true. Best way to put it is like the game 20 questions. Say you're thinking of an iguana and every question that I ask takes me closer. Is it vertebrate, is it a reptile etc. But never would I then change back and say it has to be a canine because the previous questions confirmed I was closer to the truth.

[@KenLord]

Amazing, you see the complete and utter lack of any evidence of any kind for anything supernatural ... and the absolute match of everything we observe in the universe being consistent with there being no gods ... as proof of your god's amazing power. Well done. I bet you arent even aware, as a christian, that your god, Yehweh, was just a minor regional god of storms and fertility within the Canaanite Pantheon. One of many minor gods that were subservient to El. Until the Isrealites rewrote their scriptures to delete the other gods, to elevate theirs, and to redefine El as a general word for god, instead of the supreme god - to get El out of the way of Yehweh.

[@rompevuevitos222]

@@arthurfilipe7380 I mean, it IS an oxymoron. The only reason that people even know of god is due to the bible. Yet at the same time, it is very obvious that the bible is nothing but a book and everything in it could have been faked. And even if the first parts aren't. Any who added to it even centuries later could have done so. Christianism is purely faith that specific parts (the one the viewer chooses) of the book are true without any proof of it. It would be equally valid to claim ANY other book has real events (even if it doesn't claim to have them).

[@znail4675]

It's not that fundamentalism or literal belief in a holy text is the norm of believers, it's just that the ones that do are the most fervent and vocal groups.

[@PaulLefebvre]

Brilliant video, Clint. It's really helpful to have the rebuttals right there, directly addressed to the individual points used by Creationists. I already was firmly in the "birds are dinosaurs" camp, and was familiar with several of the points discussed.....but this really helped gain a few other points I had not heard of (ie. I wasn't familiar with the collagen argument).

[@mattx449]

That’s wild calling the Microraptor a bird and not a dinosaur 😂. As far as I know most birds don’t 4 wings… by this “scientist’s” standards, the microraptor’s closest relative must have been a dragonfly right?

[@dibershai6009]

There are fancy pigeons with pennaceous feathers on their feet (It obviously doesn't somehow prove that this little dromaeosaur was a true bird, I just found this interesting).

[@TheTrendyFish]

as a Christian, it pisses me off to see these creationists ignore science and twist the words of the bible, evolution doesn't contradict the bible or the existence in God in any way, idk why they go out of their way to dispute it and act ignorant towards proven science.

[@randomuser12237]

Yea bible isnt book abaut sientific facts, but relasonship whit God. It is like taking biology facts from mechanic book.

[@joepenrose1]

Well said my man 👌👍

[@SeorkMaxx]

Because if the book’s beginning is not true, what about the rest of the book……

[@nicdaigle9832]

Makes you wonder what they call Robert Bakker. One of the most famous modern paleontologists and a Pentecostal preacher.

[@Moon_x_sun]

When I was a kid I just assumed that god made sure the animal slowly evolved into the new kind of animal :)

[@Smooth_As_Silkk]

Watching Clint's increasing dismay from point to point reminds me so much of that 'match the shape meme' "Where does the the cylinder go?" "In the circle hole" "Thats right the square hole" **Sad and confused noises**

[@bumfricker2487]

i mean, the right kind of cylinder (where its height and diameter are equal) would fit perfectly into a square hole lol

[@monsecookies-u7x]

As someone that’s owned chickens, they are basically mini dinosaurs, like t-rexes. They’ll attack/eat anything smaller than them including chicks, baby squirrels, lizards, bugs, etc… I always joked that if they were the size of an emu we’d all be terrified of chickens.

[@soda9876]

I love clint so much thank you for debunking this, you're awesome

[@AlexisBrookeM]

"'Kind' is usually understood to be roughly equivalent to a Linnaean family." Actually, "kind" is usually understood to be roughly equivalent to whatever taxonomic category serves the Creationist's purpose, which is to depict _some_ groups of species as being related, while denying others are. We might accurately state that the _majority_ of what they consider created "kinds" tend to fall around the family level, but unless the word is being employed by an educated speaker as an informal synonym for "clade", the ambiguity is the whole point of using the word "kind" in the first place. "...skeletally, [birds] have a fully-perforated acetabulum, just like _most_ of the other dinosaurs, so I don't know what he's talking about." Hey, look at that... the two of you have atleast _something_ in common.

[@NitroIndigo]

Creationists love Linnaeus because he was a creationist, but they fail to consider that he also figured out humans were apes just by looking at skeletons.

[@AlexisBrookeM]

@@NitroIndigo Yup. He even challenged the biologists of the day to identify _something_ in human anatomy that would differentiate us from apes, since, by his own admission, _he_ certainly couldn't (and he was more-or-less the world's leading authority on the matter; hell, he practically invented taxonomy single-handedly). I wonder sometimes what old Carol Linnaeus would have thought had he lived long enough to read On The Origin of Species. Bet it would've blown his mind.

[@BloodPlusPwn]

I love how this starts of respectful and receptive and you can just slowly watch you get disappointed in the intellectual dishonesty.

[@jacobtomasi1542]

Thank you man! one of the best channels on youtube! And i'm sooo jealous to your calmness and systemness

[@maggiepie8810]

Wait, there were definitely dinosaurs with both bird-like and dinosaur-like features. I'm very confused by what he means.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

There are dinosaurs with both bird like and dinosaur like features. They are birds. Thats how cladistics works.

[@littlechickenman]

I love birds but their lungs have always confused me. This is the first explanation that has made it really clear for me. You are a good educator.

[@papumalik4425]

the book Magnetic Aura by Takeshi Mizuki is what everyone avoids because it’s too real