Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 3)

[@Paulogia]

Be the first on your block to own official GlompDog merchandise! paulogia.creator-spring.com/listing/glompdog

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Paul, I wish you'd also put links to previous videos in your description, as some of us stream YT videos on our TV from our phones, and can't "click on the link onscreen here" to find them. It just doesn't work for us. Thanks, please.

[@LapsedSkeptic]

Was checking out the Merch and just wanted to toss out a modest suggestion of maybe adding "...looking at the claims of Christians" to your "Former Christian" shirts. Might boost its conversation starter ability that it already has. Keep up the great work!

[@slevinchannel7589]

@@LapsedSkeptic I recommend good Atheist-Channel who really studied the bible and really wanna get to the core of truth: Like 'Viced Rhino', 'Belief it or Not' and such. But also those who havent studied and are just all about Fun are worth watching, like Sir Sic.

[@edwardtjbrown1979]

Yes, G-d does exist. Next news item, please.

[@gaimsharc7176]

No thanks... I don't want other people to think I'm unintelligent

[@MakotoKamui]

I always love apologists with glasses telling us about the perfection of our eyes...

[@boghopper5463]

our inside out eyes? great design huh.

[@jarrod752]

Shhhhh.... they like to blame sin for that.

[@JackgarPrime]

@@boghopper5463 Aren't they upside down, too?

[@matthewtucker2103]

Those are his "God Glasses"!

[@jarrod752]

@@matthewtucker2103 But if you need _God Glasses..._ doesn't that make something _imperfect_ along the way?

[@radarlockeify]

Straight off the bat with how good the human eye is (no mention of other better eyes, but anyway) From a guy wearing glasses!!

[@proculusjulius7035]

LMFAO, I was about to state the same.

[@raymondluxury-yacht1638]

Touché

[@WilbertLek]

@@raymondluxury-yacht1638 That's not a "touche". It's not a draw now. His "argument" just got trashed.

[@zamiel3]

@@WilbertLek What do you "think" touche means?

[@Ematched]

@@zamiel3 google translate says "touch."

[@LadyDoomsinger]

I love it when Paulogia and Aron Ra tackles the same apologists or videos. Aron is like the angry Dad giving them a stern talking to, Paulogia is the Mom who's "Not angry, just disappointed."

[@bodricthered]

Why can't he be the disappointed dad too?

[@bodricthered]

I'd Ship them...🥰

[@zippydebrain]

@@bodricthered Aron is decidedly less friendly. Both approaches have merit so it is nice to have both. Paul is more likely to convince others formerly like him I imagine. Aron is more cathartic to the reasonable.

[@LadyDoomsinger]

@@bodricthered Because you can argue with dad all day - but nobody wants to disappoint mom.

[@silentotto5099]

@@zippydebrain Aron is bit older and more fed up with the unending stream of lies and bullshit from Christian apologists. Plus, Paul is Canadian, so...

[@JayBandersnatch]

Love how his example of "Koala's ONLY eat eucalyptus..." completely shreds that they could have survived on the ark, or even traveled to and from the ark as there was not eucalyptus on the journey. That fact seemed to slipped over his head.

[@parkjammer]

That's only because the bibble-scribble missed a line that said "... and you shall buy large plant-pots from IKEA and fill them with living eucalyptus trees." A chatty burning bush told me about this critical missing line.

[@moehoward01]

That's the nice thing about being a christian: selective acceptance of reality.

[@nagranoth_]

but magic though... sorry, miracles, must not call it magic to prevent xian nicker twisting.

[@moehoward01]

@@stinkypanda9628 I'm going to assume that this is sarcasm, but for the creationists that will lap it up anyway: 1. Where _was_ the Garden of Eden? And how do you know it had Eucalyptus trees? 2. If the Middle Eastern Eucalyptus died in the flood, why didn't the ones in Australia? 3. Seems like poor planning on the part of Ham, Shem and Japeth to cut down the only source of nourishment for the Koalas. 4. You weren't there, either.

[@Mayordomo32]

Once you accept magic, nothing is improbable or impossible.

[@delurkor]

Any creationist "researcher" that uses the Darwin eye quote to refute evolution, is a liar. They had to purposely ignore the rest of the chapter to make their argument.

[@lisahenry20]

Either a lier or incredibly ignorant

[@simongiles9749]

The first one in a chain to do so is plainly a liar, but I think then that a lot of second-tier types simply repeat anything fed to them without bothering to analyse. So, as Lisa says, either lying or gullible.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@simongiles9749 Not surprising given that's the same thing they do with their religious material. Despite selling every person an "original document" they still only read some parts out of context.

[@christiangreff5764]

What I find particullarily perplexing when confronted with this argument is that if I found a quote of the basically founding figure of the opposite claim that presents them as sceptical/unbelieving of their own claim, I would instantly evaluate 2 possibilities: 1) For some godforsaken reason this person does not believe their own claim and 2) I have massively missunderstood or misinterpreted something And would then immediately go with option 2) ...

[@goldenalt3166]

@@christiangreff5764 Again, Christians think this because they believe things that Jesus seems to clearly deny.

[@trevorbrooks7816]

I love how he gives koalas as an example, when they do not even have a mechanism to breakdown eucalyptus genetically encoded. They actually have to eat their mother feces soon after being born to introduce the proper microbiome for breaking down eucalyptus. God designing a species that can only eat eucalyptus and yet need to eat their mothers feces in order to eat the eucalyptus is anything but intelligent design.

[@JayMaverick]

Mysterious ways, you see.

[@leslieviljoen]

Also, since he's so intent on a literal interpretation of Genesis, how did the koalas swim to Australia with nothing to eat on the way?

[@Futt.Buckerson]

IIRC, koalas are also riddled w/ Chlamydia. Those fornicating bastards!

[@cnault3244]

The Bible is big on eating feces. There is a passage that appears in two books of the Bible about eating feces and drinking urine

[@TheDizzleHawke]

Ewwww! Gross!

[@streetsdisciple0014]

And the grift continues…how Paul can patiently sit through these is beyond me.

[@nohaydios3590]

Wondering this 2

[@B.S._Lewis]

Him being a cartoon helps I'm sure. But his incessant blinking betrays his frustration.

[@CaptFoster5]

Oh, I have little doubt he screams and breaks things and maybe takes a shot or two to calm down before audio taping his segments 😁

[@EdwardHowton]

Grift? No. No, I don't think David here is a grifter. Grifters have (admittedly unsavory) skills and don't rely on a captive audience. He's an extortionist.

[@CaptFoster5]

@@EdwardHowton for a few seconds I thought you were talking about me, but then remembered the name of the goofy half asleep crypt keeper creationist Paulogia was critiquing ... 😂

[@ecpracticesquad4674]

I’ll say it louder for the creationists in the back… “DEMONSTRATING EVOLUTION FALSE DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY DEMONSTRATE THE ASSERTION OF SUPERNATURAL CREATION TRUE.” Even if you could disprove evolution, which you haven’t, you still have to provide evidence in support of the truth of creation. Quote mining is not evidence.

[@pcppbadminton]

I get strong flat earther vibes. They spend all their time trying to point out the (misunderstood) "flaws" in the globe model without ever attempting to actually provide a coherent alternative, not realising that even if they could prove the earth was not an oblate spheroid it still wouldn't prove that it was disc shaped. Probably not surprising considering a Venn diagram of the flat earth and religious communities would look like a circle with a bullseye.

[@aralornwolf3140]

"mining is ... evidence" Yes... it is. See?!

[@TheDizzleHawke]

@@pcppbadminton I’ve also drawn that comparison.

[@raysalmon6566]

40, 3, I’ll say it louder for the creationists in the back… “DEMONSTRATING EVOLUTION FALSE DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY DEMONSTRATE THE ASSERTION OF SUPERNATURAL CREATION TRUE.” Even if you could disprove evolution, which you haven’t, you still have to provide evidence in support of the truth of creation. Quote mining is not evidence. well Aron Ra quote mines all over the place are you doing point out to him his fallacy like quoting a Clueless Rabbi as a source that Moses did not exist ok then please explain how Israel came into existence without Moses and the Exodus

[@raysalmon6566]

@@pcppbadminton 5, I get strong flat earther vibes. They spend all their time trying to point out the (misunderstood) "flaws" in the globe model without ever attempting to actually provide a coherent alternative, not realising that even if they could prove the earth was not an oblate spheroid it still wouldn't prove that it was disc shaped.... Read more the Bible does not teach flat earth why would Jesus use polar coordinates?

[@kai_plays_khomus]

*"You don't need to believe in evolution - but you should try to understand what you don't believe in."* is my quote of the video and the main point of the conflict.

[@BenLeinweber]

Actually I found this quote incredibly jarring, and it's what brought me to the comments. Paul has talked about in previous videos how it is not incumbent on the non-believer to go through every apologist argument and comb through the entire bible before making up their mind on whether or not that person accepts Christianity. I know a lot more about Christianity than any other religion, but I'm not going out of my way to go through each religion's full set us tenants before deciding that I don't believe in them.

[@sniperwolf50]

@@BenLeinweber I guess the argument here is make sure you're not rejecting something based on a misrepresentation of it

[@kai_plays_khomus]

@@sniperwolf50 That's it. And evolution is a scientific fact - if you want to impose christian views in textbooks and accuse 97% of the scientists in relevant fields to be liars, a part of a conspiracy even you should know damn well what you are talking about. I'm an atheist - yet I don't claim the bible to be an orchastrated effort in lying to "obstruct the universal truth of science" or something. But according to you it would be a legitimate position to hold for an atheist when you grant the apologists such a "right of ignorance". But I couldn't take an atheist seriously who tries to attack religion in this way.

[@kai_plays_khomus]

@@BenLeinweber PS: "I don't go through each religion's full set of tenants before deceiding I don't believe in them." That's the point: it isn't a matter of belief. The theory of evolution was developed using the same method that gave us gravitational theory, or particle physics. Some of their implications are way less well understood as evolution, yet I don't hear christians reject the theory of gravity or the theory behind their computers. When did you decide to believe in gravity and electrons?

[@rahowherox1177]

And the opposite is true too. Of youre gonna claim your religion is true, then at the least you should learn / read the dogma first- ie that which is claimed to be true.

[@nagranoth_]

28:48 isn't it kind of weird how Pack explicitly admits being dishonest here? I thought apologists were supposed to pretend they were honest... but he flat out states that _honest_ theologians would _never_ deny science, right after having done nothing but deny science his entire series.

[@robertmiller9735]

Yeah but he reserves the right to decide what science is "real" science.

[@bghiggy]

I have to say, the glomp dog analogy was one of the best explanations for how natural selection works that I've ever seen.

[@stevenread5473]

Yes , and realizing it would take a very long time for this to happen. Something Pack does not discuss.

[@KangMinseok]

What takes longer.... the research or coming up with fitting pop culture references?

[@gustavlarsson7494]

I think you've misunderstood. The pop culture is in there because Paul can't prevent his mind from drifting when slogging through this mess of a sermon, haha. He just puts them on the screen so we can enjoy them too xD

[@LordRunolfrUlfsson]

I looked up this "Douglas B. Sharp" person, and he's apparently just the host of a creationist talk show. He has no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

[@autonomouscollective2599]

Yes, I noticed _most_ of his “sources”, with a few notable exceptions, are creationists. And he presents them as of they’re credible scientists.

[@Beacon80]

"Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized?" He says, about the most developed fossil record we've discovered...

[@oscargr_]

Always reminds me of the interview Dawkins had with (creationist) Wendy Wright... 🤣🤣🤣

[@grahvis]

He knows his creationist followers will not question or fact check anything he says. His only purpose is to reinforce their belief.

[@mattsmith1440]

The roof of my house is utterly dependent on the walls of my house, which are utterly dependent on the foundations. My house also needed a road to connect it to other places, water mains, electricity and telecommunication lines. If there were no houses around, nobody would have built the roads that now connect them, nor bothered to put the cables there, and my roof would never have been able to be elevated to it's present position. The only possible conclusion is that one incredibly powerful builder stopped by and constructed all those things at once, in order to give rise to my roof, which is quite a beautiful sight!

[@Broomful]

Nice sarcasm

[@grapeshot]

Oh yeah this is the guy that has his cult in my state of Ohio. And AronRa tore him a new one.

[@jancavelli]

Aron Ra destroyed this guy and your doing the same thing as Aron this lying christian doesn't get tired of being embarrassed and destroyed... Sorry David but grow up

[@alanw505]

This creationist continues to demonstrate that the only "proofs" for any Gods existence are misinformation, logical fallacies, and outright lies.

[@bulwinkle]

I am disappointed that our eyes cannot allow us to see from the ultra-microscopic to astronomical scales without the use of external instruments. I would like also to extend the range of em frequencies that we can perceive.

[@ThylineTheGay]

I wonder if tech within our lifetimes will enable seeing far better

[@bulwinkle]

@@ThylineTheGay it does, with microscopes and telescopes, but they are external devices.

[@monkeyman193]

@@ThylineTheGay I've got plastic lenses in my eyes and they certainly work better than the ones God gave me.

[@protoborg]

@@ThylineTheGay It already does. It's called glasses.

[@beannathrach2417]

Your disappointment aligns with reality. Photons are the same basic stuff, but the way they interact with matter depends on their wavelength. You need different kinds of matter to intercept widely differing wavelengths. Radio telescopes and xray telescopes are quite different. However we could see ultraviolet except our natural lenses block it leading to occlusions. The retina is sensitive to those wavelengths.

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

“They eye is spectacularly complex.” Yes, that’s kinda the problem. The retina is backwards, with the blood vessels in front of the light sensitive cells, the point where the retina attaches to the optic nerve puts a giant blind spot in the middle of the field of view, it’s filled with fluid, a requirement for eyes evolved for seeing underwater, and so many more, our eyes are a crap show of ad hoc solutions tacked onto ad hoc solutions beaten out by a chickens eye.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Great channel, but not big enough! C'mon, grow! Me recommending you to others cant be your only way to grow! Collabs can make you grow; to your info! I'm doing my best but you have to do your part, Paulogia!!

[@MsLemon42]

@@slevinchannel7589 Paulogia absolutely does collaborations ^_^

[@zippydebrain]

The optic nerve is only a problem because the damned nerves connect on the INSIDE of the eye, essentially in-side-out from what I understand. If they were connected from the outside it would be far less of a problem, and wouldn't be connected where it affected important vision (like the middle of the damned field of view) Any designer would be fired for that kind of nonsense...just one of many problems that would make any conscious creator incompetent. Even Guided Evolution would expect these problematic evolved designs to suddenly get fixed out of nowhere all of a sudden with no explanation...never happens.

[@slevinchannel7589]

@@MsLemon42 Cool

[@Scyllax]

Cephalopods do not have blind spots.

[@edenicawakening]

Creationist logic (or anti logic): "look at everything that exists! There's no way things could ever have been different.

[@Demopans5990]

All the while not understanding the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions Scientists try to find the explanations to what they don't understand. Creationists claim we don't need to know. One is currently using the fruits of the labor of the other.

[@AtheistJr]

Many Proofs? That's not enough - I'm going to need to see some evidences before I can truly decide.

[@boghopper5463]

proof without evidence. an interesting concept.

[@GalapagosPete]

“…some evidences…“ I see what you did there!

[@MsLemon42]

There are many evidences, but atheists refuse to believe these evidences so I’m just gonna keep them to myself and recommend faith only. /sarcasm

[@boghopper5463]

@@MsLemon42 there are no evidences. period.

[@boghopper5463]

@@MsLemon42 of course you will. your evidences are only evidences to those with faith. “believing in what you know ain’t so”

[@graffffik]

1:00the human eye - is one of the least "perfect" items on a human body, it is prone to fail as 1 gets older, it is prone to have poor eyesight, it is prone to get a myriad of diseases. it is stupid to use this as an argument of a perfect gawd

[@Forest_Fifer]

And it's wired backwards

[@PatBrownfield-TheRainmaker]

Aron Ra absolutely demolished this series and it was hilarious. Love to see what you do with it, Paul

[@BenYork-UBY]

If your best proof of god is expressing ignorance of how evolution works instead of actually showing proof of a god...you're on the wrong side of history

[@spencerftn1]

In the Venn diagram of "arguments against evolution" and "understanding of evolution" there are 2 circles that don't touch.

[@brucetopping248]

I always think of Paul working on these clips and cutting in great movie references comedic montages.I hope it is a rewarding and fun process as I imagine it is (at least at times). Appreciate this content.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Great channel, but not big enough! C'mon, grow! Me recommending you to others cant be your only way to grow! Collabs can make you grow; to your info! I'm doing my best but you have to do your part, Paulogia!!

[@davee.9906]

The problem Creationists have is they see everything as it is right now and think it's always been this way. But everything is constantly changing and there isn't a final destination meaning we will never stop evolving just like every other living thing.

[@zamiel3]

So how has the human body evolved over the last 300 years?

[@christiangreff5764]

The "we will never stop evolving" (as in we humans) might actually be debatable, at least too some degree: Post-industrial civilisations lead to most people managing to reproduce and in similar amounts. So the strength and amount of evolutionary pressures has already lessened (one big remaining trait conductive to wider spread of genetic material might be the inclination to have more kids even under post-scarcity conditions, with birth rates often below 2 that could lead to an evolutionary adavantage; so not totally gone). Other traits might also be effective (better imune system if more pandemics hit? But most of the extreme cases were older people aka those that already had kids, so reduced evolutionary impact). And if the point of "designed babies" is reached one day, we would totally break the chains of "natural"/biological evolution. I of course grant that it is basically impossible to escape selection in some shape or form. As long as one has variation, it will stay effective in one way or another (on the societal level (which structure of society is more effective at propagating itself), on the species level (are we able to become space faring and pass possible great filters?), etc.).

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

@@zamiel3 the apo-A1 Milano mutation, which has begun to make heart disease a less prominent problem. It's still working its way through the population, but its there. LRP5 mutation, which produces super dense bone structure in its inheritors. It goes back a tad further than 300 years, but about 10k years ago, humans evolved the ability to digest lactose into adulthood, and this mutation is *still* working its way through the population. These are just the 3 I remember best, because they're the ones I've heard about most, and most recently.

[@zamiel3]

@@Thoron_of_Neto Interesting. Thank you, I will give those a look.

[@roblovestar9159]

Paul: "David C. Pack brings incredible proofs...". Paul, I see what you did there. They really are incredible! That is, not credible. As for Pack's arguments, it really is like shooting fish in a barrel. Only two barrels to go, as you point out...

[@andystokes8702]

Just me or does anybody else find it incredibly frustrating that David C Pack and others of a similar mind set seem so keen to use science to debunk the theory of evolution whilst simultaneously believing in a version of events, creation, that defies any scientific explanation.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Know Forrest Valkai and his opinion on the matter?

[@kr00m]

How did Noah get the Australian native Eucalyptus plant to feed Koalas on the Ark?

[@kevinwright3065]

Gawwwwwwd

[@oscargr_]

God created Australia *after* the flood. (But that book never made it into the bible)

[@takisorebidis1755]

Australia was not separated from the rest of the world 6.000 years ago.

[@HappyExtheist]

Because god, dontcha' know

[@SilverMKI]

The flood washed all the Eucalyptus trees from all the lands but Australia. Duh! :P

[@adrianthom2073]

I am sure this has been said already, but he claims how amazing the human eye is, yet he requires glasses.

[@kayb9979]

24:48 "Bumblebees "appear" to completely defy the laws of physics." That's a way out of taking responsibility for one's own assertions.

[@Oswlek]

David asks a lot of interesting questions. If only he didn't think the questions were the answers, then he might get somewhere. Assuming he actually wants to go, of course.

[@EdwardHowton]

Yes. Interesting... "That's an interesting picture you're drawing there. Is it a chariot? Or perhaps a plague-ravaged corpse?" _It's a dog, mom!_ "How very.... interesting..... dear."

[@Oswlek]

@@EdwardHowton Ha! No, I mean it sincerely. These same questions asked with genuine curiosity could foster a productive conversation. But "productive conversation" doesn't strike me as being too high on David's list of priorities.

[@EdwardHowton]

@@Oswlek Hm. I have a nickname for his particular brand of "questions". I call them askusations. Accusations in the form of a question. The prototypic example is that tired favorite of creationists: "if we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" It might seem like an actual question, but the idiots have already dropped the microphone, kicked over the chess board, and flown back to their twit-twit pigeon friends to shit in victory. Jon Stewart called it the Cavuto, after Fox "News"'s Neil Cavuto, who would put dumb questions on his chiron and mark them with the "Cavuto mark". Looks like a ? but is more fitting next to (using Stewart's example:) "Is your mother a whore? I'm not _saying_ she's a whore, I'm just saying that people who have banged your mother for money can disagree!". Hence "interesting". They might be interesting questions coming from a human being, but they're just catchphrases for con artists and nutjobs like Pack.

[@EdwardHowton]

@@Oswlek Oh, that reminds me. You'd probably like the series "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science". Same basic premise as what you said. Dumb idiots say dumb idiot things, leading to smart people actually learning why dumb idiots are dumb idiots who are wrong. It's quite good. Quite a significant number of dumb idiots get offended by the title, too, upset that they've been "tricked". So hey, bonus.

[@leslieviljoen]

It's best to learn one's biology from theologians, they have an amazing track record in the sciences.

[@cassietheenglishteacher]

Love the point that intelligent design is simple. After going through childbirth twice, I’m not sure how anyone can argue that our bodies were intelligently designed haha.

[@rahowherox1177]

Tbf that is punishment for eve bring most responsible for eating fruit from forbidden tree

[@LapsedSkeptic]

New Paulogia, with that great violin riff and its 30mins long?? Praise Elohim! 🙌

[@RickReasonnz]

Hm, to be pedantic, he's had that intro for quite some time now. Nice tho, isn't it.

[@LapsedSkeptic]

@@RickReasonnz right, but it isn't always that intro.. sometimes is Ham & AIGs.. or his special series intros.

[@wolfos420]

Thank you Paul, this guy may be a dingleberry, but you are a joy. Keep up the amazing work, until next time. 👏

[@sebidotorg]

3:55 HDR does not use multiple lenses, it just uses three different light sensitivity settings in a short timespan and combines the pictures. It works just fine on my iPhone 6s, which only has one lens.

[@fje6902]

I loved Aaron Ra's commentary on this series.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Know Viced Rhino though?

[@nebtheweb8885]

Creationism, like evolutionary theory, offers a model for how living entities change over time. But unlike evolutionary theory, creationism is not science, so the scientific community is very unlikely to embrace it. Its roots are in Genisis, not in the scientific method. It starts with a conclusion and then attempts to amass observations to support it, discarding any that do not.

[@flowingafterglow629]

"Creationism, like evolutionary theory, offers a model for how living entities change over time" Goddidit is not a "model" that says anything about "how" something happens. "It's magic" is not an explanation for anything.

[@EdwardHowton]

Models explain things and allow you to make predictions. "A magic man poofed it with magic" is not an explanation, and allows no predictions. It then tries to explain away the lack of predictions with vapid handwaving about how God can do what he wants. So no, creationism doesn't offer a model. It doesn't even pretend to. It offers comfortable nonsense dressed up in language that would make a cut-rate medication commercial actor in an ill-fitting labcoat blush in embarrassment.

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint Exupéry

[@mgg7756]

Cheap indeed

[@uninspired3583]

Can someone take away creationists

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Err, for those at the back, this means complexity is not the Hallmark of a good design.

[@uninspired3583]

@@TheCheapPhilosophy not the hallmark, no. But it can be necessary.

[@EdwardHowton]

I've always loved that quote. I think about it every time they announce a new idiot box from Apple. "This one has a 4th camera, conveniently placed at a 45 degree angle for no goddamn reason!"

[@naturadventur7425]

"Believers should not fear facts" and yet he knowingly lied numerous times proving that he fears facts.

[@VisiblyPinkUnicorn]

The eye: *reverse upside down the image that it sees and then forces the brain to revert it back.* David C. Pack: "God's supreme intelligence."

[@jarrod752]

They probably blame that on sin or something.

[@petercoo9177]

Oh, and with a built in blind spot (the point at which the optic nerve has to connect).

[@neonshadow5005]

This is all just the same ole' crap meant to re-affirm to believers what they already want to be true and to whom facts mean very little due to being conditioned to accept anything they are told to support their belief and being forbidden from listening to or seeking information that does not come from other believers.

[@stevewebber707]

"Honest theologians, would never deny science." From the mans own mouth, and in appropriate context.

[@EdwardHowton]

An honest theologian, an educated antivaxxer, and a sane flat-Earther walk into a bar. After recovering from their concussions, they enter a drinking establishment, and the bartender says "Hey, your money's no good here, it's as imaginary as all of you and I can't pay my bills with a hypothetical set-up for a joke!"

[@simongiles9749]

I keep hearing this guy's name as David "CPAC", which I imagine would be his kind of thing.

[@sniperwolf50]

Even if we were to accept that all his arguments prove the existence of god, none of them show that his particular choice of god is the correct one

[@tradergirljam]

Man made god in his own image and saw it was profitable 🤑🤑🤑🤑

[@EdwardHowton]

A horrifying thought, isn't it? I made up a god. Gurpflabts, the God of Convenient Examples. He doesn't encourage slaughter or slavery, he just stands as a convenient example for when I need a convenient example, like of a god I invented. Imagine the kind of sick bastards who would invent Yahweh in their own image? Or rather don't, unless you want to pay a fortune in therapy for the rest of your life.

[@BattleF08]

David C. Pack's main problem is that he seems to believe all proposed evolution happens step-wise in turn. Like yeah, hummingbirds have many adaptions in physiology, behavior and ecological niche. And evolving these properties one at a time, from absent to 100% complete, in turn, is indeed impossible. There wasn't just one generation that suddenly had an insanely fast heartbeat. The adaptations progressed slowly, together, towards the current state.

[@TrudeHell]

Now I want to taste those Glump Dogs real bad!

[@MGC-XIII]

The Koala argument makes no sense when you think about that this guy also argues for a world flood that doesn't take into account the koalas and their special eating habit in the first place.

[@klumaverik]

I don't understand how anyone can look at this info and still believe young earth creation is how we came to be.

[@trakeC]

If you live in texas go vote. There is a bill to prevent governemnt from prohibition of religion. In other words it will make it illegal for police to break up religious protests or religious gatherings In public or government run areas. And prevent the government from stopping church services in a pandemic etc

[@vanman6534]

Yeah, go vote for the law that would prevent the evil government from protecting you when some grifter is insisting that you risk your life so he can get your money. Of course that law, if passed, would be unconstitutional since the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. No one was "stopping church services". The church was simply required to hold those services in a manner that did not expose the congregation to a deadly disease. Of course not having the congregation in close contact meant that the grif um pastor could not guilt them into shelling out the bucks, and how is he supposed to afford the gas for his private jet or his "mission" to the Bahamas this winter. There is a reason the church calls you the "flock".

[@trakeC]

@@vanman6534 or go vote against that...

[@vanman6534]

@@trakeC I choose to assume that you mean vote against the law, so thanks for your support.

[@trakeC]

@@vanman6534 i did

[@davidnewland2461]

It seems this guy doesn't under st evolution

[@JM-us3fr]

I always find creationists anti-evolution arguments rather silly, since we can actually simulate evolution in a computer with far fewer variables than the natural world, and indeed complexity does in fact arise over thousands to millions of generations. How much more complexity could arise with all the variables of the natural world?

[@Demopans5990]

We actually do use the concept of evolution in the design of some AIs. Darwinian selection if I remember correctly

[@plattbagarn]

Please, David. Koalas is ***NOT*** the example you want to use to argue for a creator.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

And god created opticians and glasses, simultaneously with deteriorating eyesight too; Just like He did toothaches and dentists, cancers and oncologists, or freight and freight trains, for that matter. (as well as random thoughts and you-tube comment sections)

[@beannathrach2417]

There's a line of thought, medieval Judaism I think, that the creation was made intentionally incomplete with humans invited to complete creation with their god. Our eyes are imperfect, but we can augment them in ways they could not evolve. Beware of arguments from personal incredulity: your knowledge is limited, and things you don't know might answer your questions. Look for better answers.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

@@beannathrach2417 I didn't ask any questions. ps (edit): and _"god did it"_ has never been an answer (it doesn't explain anything), let alone _'a better'_ one.

[@beannathrach2417]

@@BorisNoiseChannel Lisa forbid we should ever listen to Jews or anyone else for insights to ponder.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

@@beannathrach2417 There's nothing wrong with listening and pondering. There _is_ something wrong with believing stuff _on faith,_ though. Be it Jews or Catholics or Mormons or whoever.

[@samihawasli7408]

So, let me get this straight… a guy who needs glasses to see well, is arguing our eyes are proof of divine creation? Did he really think that through?

[@Forest_Fifer]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Literally in this case.

[@Fistrike]

"This thing doesn't work, so how could it have evolved" and missed the "how could a perfect being design something so stupid as male angler fish feeding system?"

[@tomsenior7405]

Paul, I do not know how you can do your job. I love your show and you have my deep respect, but I am so very frustrated by hearing the same stupid arguments from Apologists. Their misrepresentation of "The Big Bang". Their obsession with "Complexity" and "Darwinian" Evolution. Look at the Trees. Why are there still Monkeys? Something From Nothing. "Proofs" of god. Abuse of the word "Evidences". Quote Mining. Every Painting has a Painter. Tornado in a Scrapyard. Irreducible Complexity. Vehicles don't Evolve. Writing in the sand. Were you there? Gish Gallops. The human eye. Profound Christian Claims without any substantiative evidence. Complete & utter lies. A diatribe of stupidity, nonsense and rot from Christians. How can you stand it? Please do not stop working hard. You are my hero.

[@thegameranch5935]

He didn’t do any research about evolution yet he still saying its wrong Same with you, a simple google search tell you why

[@tomsenior7405]

@@thegameranch5935 Thank you for your response. I have read your message several time and, frankly I can not understand what you are trying to say. Would you be so kind as to try again? Who is "He"? What do you mean by "research" and who is the second "he"... actually, I give up. I am trying to help you. I just can not fathom what you are trying to say. Good luck with your next attempt. Cheers

[@thegameranch5935]

@@tomsenior7405 the man who made this video And the research is looking at recent scientific studies about the subject and learn how evolution works

[@tomsenior7405]

@@thegameranch5935 Thank you for the addendum. I still am uncertain as to what you mean. Actually, I think you are having a Bubble. Are you having a Bubble Mate?

[@thegameranch5935]

@@tomsenior7405 are you trolling or something?

[@phrozenwun]

Ahh, that is why I can't see God! He is hiding in the flaw of my retina known as the blind spot. What a fantastic design flaw for a shy god, now if only all the theist would also stay in my blind spot my life would be so much better.

[@MsLemon42]

That’s perfect design! Now we cannot test the lord our god since he is so adept at hiding in our blind spot. Even better than shadow people

[@0nlyThis]

"God" is a word, a symbol for which there is no corresponding experiential reality.

[@beannathrach2417]

You do know experimental science starts with the postulate of no gods? If it were to prove a god, it would be logically inconsistent.

[@0nlyThis]

@@beannathrach2417 No, not with the postulate of no gods but with no postulate of any gods. Big difference.

[@beannathrach2417]

@@0nlyThis Wrong. The postulate is the universe is mechanical. That means no gods or any other agents with free will. Without this postulate it becomes pointless to try to explain the universe. I realize you pretend you are superior because you have TRUTH while they have mere BELIEFS. You're delusional. Try some serious introspection and honesty to avoid such simple logic errors.

[@0nlyThis]

@@beannathrach2417 Whatever.

[@E.J.Crunkleton]

@@beannathrach2417 I'm not sure of the context of your claim regarding postulates, do you care to unpack why you think science makes an apriori claim regarding the existence of "gods"?

[@simonthompson2764]

Congratulations, Packman, on being so skilled in picking quotes and using them totally inappropriately and out of context.

[@trybunt]

25,000 per reviewed papers which reference the evolution of angler fish? Wo, that's impressive 👏 But the creationist mindset seems to be "I bet they haven't thought about angler fish!"

[@rickschofield3131]

This intelligent design theory always reminds me of the 100 failures of lightbulb design- he said he never failed but actually discovered 99 things that don’t work and 1 that does work- so we now use the one that works

[@DonDueed]

Actually, we used a different thing that works (tungsten), which Edison's boys missed. Except now we don't even use that anymore, mostly.

[@RobinPillage.]

These creationists are truly bizarre people. It's just mind blowing how people can just make stuff up, dig their heels in, refuse to learn and then demand everyone else believe their made up backwards ideas. It's just scary.

[@amroth14105]

Very packed with fun cultural references. I, for one, appreciate the direction you've been going as your channel continues to... change over time @Paulogia

[@TheDizzleHawke]

When will apologists understand that arguments against science and arguments from incredulity aren’t evidence for a god? This guy never got around to presenting any positive evidence for his claims.

[@grayintheuk8021]

Great thoughtful video Paul - thank you.

[@fred_derf]

td;dr So these creatures didn't evolve because they couldn't exist in the past as they exist now… Seriously, the lack of understanding of people like Pack has to be a put on… doesn't it?

[@bariumselenided5152]

19:17 I’m pretty sure the “while traveling” bit is meant to be analogous to how whales and their transitional ancestors all were functional animals with successful population. At no point did the ancestors take a “pit stop” of being sustained artificially to be transformed in some profound way. Not sure if it makes sense as an analogy, but I think that’s what he means

[@MM-jf1me]

That makes sense.

[@beannathrach2417]

Humans have small, weak teeth and canines that don't interlock. This is an asset in our species because it allows us precise control to make a variety of sounds. However the small teeth predate language. Our ancestor species also needed fire to soften food so they could eat enough to survive. Simply saying 'random random random therefore step 3 and wealth' is not very convincing. Perhaps a developed statistical argument or finding some heretofore unknown mechanism that links them.

[@bariumselenided5152]

@@beannathrach2417 I think you commented on the wrong comment by mistake, friend

[@beannathrach2417]

@@bariumselenided5152 You're right. I meant to respond to the comment to that different of chains of mutations can end up meeting and working together completely randomly. And this is so commonplace no right thinking person should ever question such coincidences. I question them. I have no answers, just asking questions.

[@chuckoneill2023]

"First is the human EYE!!!" "Of course it is....." Good ol' Dave thinks all his tedious work is original.....

[@matthewbloom3869]

David: "First is the human eye..." Me: *eyeroll*

[@freddan6fly]

Did you notice that his perfect eyes needs glasses?

[@matthewbloom3869]

@@freddan6fly anyone without 20/20 vision is an abomination to god!

[@lydellb]

It seems the major hang up is the lack of an ability for these people to see the very small steps it takes for these things to become what they are. It's like they've never asked where all of the hundreds of different dog breeds came from.

[@realrealwarpet]

To be fair, the koalas dependence on eucalyptus is also why it’s endangered. Little nutrition means less energy, means less chance to escape predators. I wonder how the koalas evolution line looks

[@scientious]

This is Kent Hovind's tired argument which he isn't smart enough to realize would also disprove shoelaces, coffee pots, and birthday cakes.

[@artu2302]

I've come to the conclusion that most of the religious conflate "easiest" with "simplest" answer. What is easier, taking time to research, test, study, and examine how things happen, can happen, work well? Or just assume it was done by a higher being? I wonder. Hahaha

[@goldenalt3166]

Except they totally ignore the even simpler answer, "it is". It sounds like special pleading that "God is the answer."

[@cdorst08]

I would love to see David react to this video...probably pretty short. Something like "No, I can't understand that so I'm right."

[@johngleeman8347]

I could really go for a glompdog right now. XD

[@Tanner404]

The actual artile cited written by Menton is called "Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!" on Answers in Genesis. It's supercomputer claims are almost 40 years outdated and it's frustrating to see the lack of recent citations in this series.

[@ericjohnson6665]

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. I am fond of eyes for what they can communicate to each other. When I look into my wife's eyes, I can see love coming back at me. Yes, I like being able to see, but prednisone has done a bit of a number on my eyes... cataracts. Now they don't even consistently track with one another... kind of like Mad-eye Moody, (or Marty Feldman). And if the range of light frequencies that we can see were expanded, we might even be able to see Midwayers... or angels. (Which some people can already see.) [What? That's not the point? Darn!]

[@stephenjames2951]

Maybe God is a software developer. Everything starts simple then . . .

[@trybunt]

An underplayed, disinterested and lackadaisical software developer

[@lisahenry20]

A software engineering student with a deadline coming up?

[@simongiles9749]

What's that programmer's mantra - cheap, fast or functional, pick one, something like that? Guess God went for the "fast" option to get the project completed in six days so He could have a nap on the seventh day.

[@sgt.duke.mc_50]

I stumbled upon the "World to Come" stuff back in the 80's on one of their late, late, Sat. night programs or early Sun. morning gigs when there wasn't much else on any of the "Big Three" broadcast networks. It actually was pretty entertaining. Even though they have always been of end times philosophy, David does seem almost hysterical now. With increasing apathy towards religion and availability of educational materials, I personally think the Judeo/Christian philosophy has seen it's better days. I have no idea if statistics would bare me out, it's strictly intuitive. Many christians are standing like the old parlor game of whether you blindly trust the person behind to catch you if you fall backwards. Videos like these continue to help people know that it's OK to let go (or fall back) without fear of a hard landing. Kudos to you Paul!

[@sussekind9717]

Seriously? He is quoting Michael Behe? All he is known for, is the irreducible complexity argument. Which, granted, he is a biochemist, so he is qualified to speak on this subject. However, his whole theory was pretty much debunked, and dismissed by the majority of his peers, the very year he forwarded the idea. OK, that's not totally fair. He did appear at many court cases involving his theory as well as Intelligent design, including the Kitzmiller versus Dover case. interestingly, every case where he testified as an expert witness, his side had always lost the case. Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures, have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community. Even his own biology department at Lehigh University, published a statement repudiating both Behe's views and intelligent design as a whole. So even his own boss says, that he is full of Shite. Even the judge at the Kitzmiller trial said that, his testimony on intelligent design, was not scientific and strictly religious in nature, therefore not worthy of any serious consideration. And that's who he is holding up, as his great scientific source. You are a sad, sad, man.

[@MrCrimsonbolt]

This is entirely off topic, and it is highly unlikely that you'll even see this comment. However, if you do happen upon it and are inclined to reply, I would appreciate your advice as someone whose intelligence and integrity I admire greatly. I am 42 and live in the UK, for context. My quandary is as such - I am a dyed in the wool atheist; theism has just never been part of my reality. My entire family (aside from the mother of some of my cousins; a woman I did not, and do not, like) is atheist. The claims of religion have always seemed absurd to me, but I am fascinated by it. In particular I'm fascinated by the nature of reality; the fact that people share a physical space with me, but exist in a reality administered by an interventionalist god, blows my fucking mind. End of tangent, the actual quandary is - My girlfriend's grandfather (she was primarily raised by her grandparents as a child) is the most intelligent person I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. He was a professor at a reputable university in England. He is an incredible man, endlessly fascinating, infinitely generous in every way and somebody who I have an enormous amount of respect for. He is also a devout Catholic. I would absolutely love to have a conversation with him about his beliefs. While I have no doubt he'll have a lot of interesting things to say about theology and things like that, what I really want to know is why he believes. I generally find religion easy to dismiss, but this man's intelligence dwarfs mine, I would love to know what he sees that I don't. The quandary is that he is in his 80s, with cancer. It seems an incredibly insensitive time to ask a religious person to examine why they believe, even though I have no intention of making a case for atheism. My questions come from a place of deep respect, and an acknowledgement that I may never get the opportunity to talk to such an intelligent believer again. Do you think it is insensitive, or do you think it is ok to ask with delicacy and respect? I appreciate that Paul isn't going to read all this waffle, but anyone that has persevered, I'd be interested to know what you think

[@herbevans2727]

I know it's not nice to laugh, but I can't help it when I watch Mr Pack. His earnestness, incredulity and theatrical gestures set my belly jiggling.

[@EdwardHowton]

Those exact funny traits of his are what make him so dangerous. He's _clearly_ a True(tm) Believer(tm). I wouldn't be shocked if I heard he was stockpiling weapons at his cult compound. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already got some. Because yeah, he already has his cult compound.

[@FlipjevanTiel]

Isn't David C Pack, as a good Christian, not concerned about lying so much? God might be really angry with him, telling such lies about his wonderful design of evolution. 😂

[@jrileycain6220]

I'm so beyond worrying about whether god exists or not that I find the arguments boring. It's almost a juvenile subject in the same mental level of butt and weenie jokes. These folks who ardently insist on existence of god, or A god, usually have a financial stake in the argument. It's a for profit , tax free business for them. Stupidity and fear are rampant and the world is full of suckers; easy prey for con men and grifters. The "god gig" is one of the easiest ways to scam people. If the one insisting on god actually believes it then they're nuts.

[@DeludedOne]

1:11 It's also a flawed design, our eyes have a blind spot. By comparison, the eyes of cephalopods are actually designed much better than ours. This shows that the Creator is actually Cthuluhu who favors His children. 9:33 And this is explained through simple adaptation, much like how humans have adapted in domesticating livestock and plants for food. It doesn't say anything about when each species appeared, only that they became interdependent on each other sometime in the past. 16:15 To be honest, the Koala is an example of a specialization path in evolution, kind of like the Giant Panda. Animals that take the opposite path of generalization have a much wider and more varied diet. Both are paths of evolution that are viable for survival in an immediate context, but they differ in terms of the advantages given and the disadvantages encountered. For example, specialized organisms may be able to exploit a food source that only they can manage, leaving them with few to no competitors for it, however, this specialization also makes them vulnerable to environmental changes, if something happens that wipe out their food source, then they will likely die too, and since they only rely on that one type of food, like how the Giant Panda relies on bamboo, it's pretty easy and likely that their source of food will be wiped out in environmental changes. On the flip side generalized organisms may encounter challenges in terms of competition since their diet is something that overlaps with those of other neighbouring species, but their varied diet allows them to survive and adapt to drastic changes in their environment better. Because they aren't over reliant on only a few or even a single type of food, such organisms can better survive changes to their environment. Neither of these 2 paths are "wrong" or "bad" and each can suit an organism and push it's ability to survive to the limit under the correct circumstances. David doesn't know it, but the Koala and others like it are good examples of how evolution not only exists and drives diversification, but how it is unguided and undesigned. 19:10 And this can be said for almost any species of animal, so it's basically pointless except as a statement of incredulity. Every animal alive has a lot of features that makes them perfectly adapted to their current environment, features that evolution honed and developed throughout the years. 24:30 The funny thing is that the religion they preach basically states that everything appeared at the same time spontaneously. Of course they credit God with that, but let's take a step back and ask, given all their incredulity about such features appearing naturally without any creator to drive them, what does having a God or creator change this scenario from one of incredulity to one of certainty? To put it simply, their God is stated to do the exact thing that they claim to be impossible under normal God-absent situations. So how does adding their God in the mix make the impossible or incredulous possible and definite? No creationist is ever able to answer this question because the only answer they have is God? How does God do it? Well because He is God! And they want to talk to us about the incredulity surrounding natural processes with regards to species diversification. 26:20 See what I wrote above about believing in unnatural and unreasonable things, I think you'll find that the creation myth fits that description perfectly. 27:00 Yes, but creationists can't go that route apart from the ID method of "look at the trees" appearance of design equals actual design. Needles to say this isn't even close to anything we can consider scientific. Hence they have to use the dichotomy straw man of attacking evolution to prove God. 27:40 I suppose that's why they lie and obfuscate about science all the time much like what David has done here. 27:59 Unfortunately the Koala, that David presented, is good evidence for undirected evolution. 28:26 Jesus; 'I tell you most solemnly, I said nothing about evolution, at all." 28:51 There he goes again, breaking one of the 10 commandments. He himself has denied science more than Peter denied Jesus on this clip alone.

[@johndoe1909]

The sheer amount of bullshit to endure. I am impreßed paulogia. I am not well versed in the christian mythology, not at least on the level exposed here. But i dont need to in order to understand that whats presented is bullshit. On another note. No. The human eye isnt particularly impressive all things considered. And in refrence to his 'impposible calculation', well, your neighbours tesla with fsd wants to say hello.... computers today have image recignition far surpasing human levels. And yesthe first computers with humanlevel complexity in terms of neurological replication has been constructed. Sure, plenty remains to be done, but the hardware is there now.

[@ladyaj7784]

I'm sorry, but the male angler fish glomming on to the female fish for nutrients seems like one of the best arguments for evolution *ever*. The fish end up in an environment where the female's body structure develops this mutation more easily than the male's. But since the females need the males to not die and/or the males don't want to die, these fish find a way to keep the males alive despite the lack of a mutation that enables them to get enough food in the dark. Who would ever consider this version of survival better than just making the males capable of feeding themselves? It's a horrid idea. But evolution is perfectly content with "good enough". It doesn't care about "best". Honestly, how are they not embarrassed by the lousy creation skills of their god? How many designs need to suck before you stop bragging about the designer??

[@koraggknightwolf8454]

I still remember the day my cat that I had for half my life died in my arms and seeing the light literally go out of her eyes thinking that was her soul leaving her body. And of course it was even more convincing to me it was her soul leaving by the fact that I besieged heaven...begging God to end her suffering as I was begging her to go to the light and the pain would go away... and she was just staring up at me with locked eyes... then about 10 seconds later she was gone and the Lights Went Out in her eyes...sorry...I'm starting to cry as I'm writing this no joke. I'll always remember that moment till the day I die... and it doesn't change anything now that I understand it was just a part of her eye letting the light in that was closed like a camera shutter. Maybe off topic but she just came to mind while I was watching this...' eyeballs couldn't come about naturally'... Bullshit.

[@AnthonyHandcock]

This dude talking about science sounds like I would sound if I talked about sport. A subject about which I know nothing and care even less.

[@krismcdaniel2858]

Yes, this is an analogy for an eye. The simplest camera is a card board box. Learned this in a photography class I took years ago. Take a card board box, put different sized holes in the sides of the box and cover them with a piece of paper. Put a piece of photo sensitive paper in the box and go out. Find something you want to take a picture of it point the box at the scene and uncover one of the holes for some time. The longer the hole is uncovered, the more exposure and brighter the pic. The size of the hole also filters the light. The paper acts like the old fashioned Kodak cameras and you get a pic fairly quickly. It's a simple camera that's doing the same job as any expensive camera that you might have, the cost being mostly what you can find as far as the paper is concerned. Like the eye, not much in the way of complexity involved, but it still functions.

[@Encysted]

I really like _how_ you push back against arguments from complexity: just because *you* don't know how a computer works *doesn't* mean computers don't work.

[@Nerazmus]

Nobody can see what a procesor does without a display of sorts. A monitor can't display anything without a grafics card. A grafics card has nothing to process without a processor sending input. Because all these parts are dependent on each other and basically useless on their own, the only explanation for the existence of computers is that they were designed and created by God and they can never change because they are already perfect.

[@Encysted]

@@Nerazmus upgrading your GPU is *_sacrilegious_*

[@elainejohnson6955]

It would take a really bad designer to design a universe that can easily be destroyed if anything changes the slightest bit within it. Any designer who put people on an Earth that has hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. was a horrible designer. Any designer who made very few places where a human can survive is a poor designer if its goal was to create humans. Any designer who made our bodies able to get easily injured, subject to illnesses, and made us so our breathing tube is next to our eating tube was an incompetent designer.

[@jasonsabbath6996]

The eye is a terrible proof for god! If our eyes came from god, why does anyone wear glasses? Why do some people need eye surgery to correct their vision? If our eyes are so great, why do so many animals have much better eyesight? Why can we not see well in the dark? It goes on and on. Our eyes are complex and some of the worst on the planet. How does that prove a creator who loves us? 🤦‍♂️🤣😂

[@WunHungLo99]

Problem is as good as the human eye is it isn't even the best eye in the natural world. Man, as a biological example is a pretty bad design overall. I would certainly re engineer the vulnerable location of male reproductive organs. Stick them inside eh? He also did a pretty bad job on cancer, viral infections, birth defects, congenital and hereditary conditions.

[@scienceexplains302]

The apologist would have a great point about koalas 🐨 and eucalyptus if he were talking about why a global Noah’s Flood is untenable. Noah would have had to grow fresh plants from multiple climates on the ark. Most animals don’t eat old food.

[@diestormlie]

I wonder if the cracks at 'town meetings' etc. And religious opposition to evolution in general is driven by an authoritarian mindset that literally struggles with conceiving of bottom-up, chance and environment driven change.