Greg Koukl: Did Dinosaurs and Cavemen Really Exist?

[@intuitivebanana]

I think the question was meant to be, "did dinosaurs and cavemen coexist?"

[@Patrick19833]

I think Dinosaurs might have look much different than scientists think. No one really knows what they really look like from the outside. They just have the bones. It's possible that the Brachiosaurus was just much bigger giraffe.

[@jessepolkjr7067]

Some of these dinosaurs they have put together have ONE bone. 👀👀

[@SeraphsWitness]

Yea, I'm always shocked at the insane claims made about dinosaurs... their coloring, their sounds, all sorts of conclusions that are jumped to with very little reason.

[@fredsalfa]

Who is asking if dinosaurs existed and why is this important? Why because the Bible didn’t specifically mention dinosaurs?

[@ricksonora6656]

If you take is literally, the history of species in Genesis does not seem to align with what we learn from paleontology. This can cause doubts about the scriptures’ accuracy for believers, and unbelievers can use it as an excuse to reject all of Christian faith.

[@rickgray2465]

The Bible clearly refers to the Dragon's! Renamed as Dinosaurs thousands of years later.

[@ZeroESG.goopootoob]

Very good response, sir. I do reject, however, the acknowledgement of the assumed term, "hominid." If I employ it, or 'primates,' etc., I steal the opportunity to preface with, "so-called..." The entire framework for these terms concede darwinism by the design of the powers who propped him up, pun intended.

[@linuxisbetter0]

This says a lot about the kind of people who sends in questions.

[@susanpoindexter1635]

Mr. Kohkl, where did the hominid humans come from? I am very interested to know please. Do you expound on this in other talks, debates?

[@STRvideos]

Thanks for the question! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.

[@deezynar]

I believe the question was whether they both existed at the same time.

[@vlapoint]

Did he really say there's a Brontosaurus reconstruction in O'Hare? The Brontosaurus was invented in 1874 by O.C. Marsh when he put the body of an Apatosaurus with the head of a Camārasaurus. By 1903, the hoax was uncovered and Marsh's invention was publicly exposed as a fraud - even though the Flintstones referred to the Brontosaurus and the US Post Office even published a Brontosaurus stamp in 1989. What amazes me is how myths continue to be so pervasive. (The sign at O'Hare says Brachiosaurus)

[@SeraphsWitness]

First of all, he probably misspoke because they're easy words to mix up. Second, the distinction doesn't particularly matter to the point of the video. Third, the original Brontosaurus claim wasn't a purposeful fraud or hoax, it was a confusion; a mistake. That's an important distinction. Fourth... they've since concluded that the Brontosaurus DID exist, distinct from the Apatosaurus.

[@geraldinepebdani2337]

The Neanderthal was listed in genesis 6 where the sins of God mated with humans and had these hominid or half human etc.. beings

[@JesusMostHigh]

The only issue with this sort of musing is that the Christian God is not found in the gaps, but rather, in the incarnation - the historical person of Jesus Christ.

[@apoorvtrivedi685]

I think Americans are smart and believe in science

[@ricksonora6656]

There’s a difference between science, which is a method, scientists, who are as human as you and me, and Scientism. Scientism is (a) a faith in science with (b) a materialist presupposition and (c) restricted to basic science methods to the exclusion of forensic science methods. Some areas of science are extremely politicized.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@ricksonora6656 Yes, science is a method… it is the single most reliable method to gain accurate information about our shared external world that has even been invented by humans. And somehow it’s only scientism when proven scientific facts contradict the myths of the Bible.😂

[@ricksonora6656]

@@ramigilneas9274 Scientism is faith in dominant, enforced ideology of scientist and future science of the gaps, to the exclusion of any other source of knowledge. If you are really interested in “gaining accurate information,” use accurate language. When you ignore discussion and language as sources of accurate information, you demonstrate Scientism.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@ricksonora6656 Well, there are a lot of scientific facts that all scientists agree on no matter which political ideology they prefer… from far left to far right… all scientists agree that Evolution is a fact, that all lifeforms on the planet share a common ancestor, that the expansion of our universe started about 14 billion years ago and that there never was a global flood as described in the Bible.😉

[@deezynar]

I wish he would have handled that question instead.

[@jeffreyleerobinson]

"they were just hominids." Way to go to mislead with playing down terms. "Neanderthal" was not "just a hominid. Nor was he "half human" (who came up with that dumb concept? - oh, you). But they were sentient creatures that used tools and buried their dead, which does give you a problem (that you conveniently ignore). Once again, you show you are have your feet "firmly planted in mid air" more than anyone you pretend to critique.

[@toastee3]

You said what I was thinking. To Greg they were "just hominids" that were "around" before God decided to get serious and create Adam and Eve. I'm amazed at the crazy hoops humans will jump through, just so they can continue to believe that a mythological story really happened.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@toastee3 “Mythological story” Ho the irony!! We all live by myths buddy including strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists!! The irony is that according to the eminent atheist philosopher and Humanist Mary Midgley…. “Evolution, then, is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory” “Fatalism is now offered, not as just one possible philosophical attitude among others with reasons given for and against it, but as a fact backed by the tremendous authority of science.” (Mary Midgley). (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism): “The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is meaningless.” (Atheism) Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your ironic proselytising about atheism not to mention your “crazy hoops” argument!! Sorry buddy but you don’t even know the implications of your own world view because the double irony is that under relativism we are all equal footing at the very least. And they mock other peoples beliefs!! “This is an attack not upon faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." The philosphic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not, therefore I cannot think” G.K. Chesterton. “It is the charge against the main deductions of the materialist that, right or wrong, they gradually destroy his humanity; I do not mean only kindness, I mean hope, courage, poetry, initiative, all that is human. For instance, when materialism leads men to complete fatalism (as it generally does), it is quite idle to pretend that it is in any sense a liberating force. It is absurd to say that you are especially advancing freedom when you only use “free thought” to destroy free will. The determinists come to bind, not to loose. They may call their law the "chain" of causation. It is the worst chain that ever fettered a human being. You may use the language of liberty, if you like, about materialistic teaching, but it is obvious that this is just as inapplicable to it as a whole as the same language when applied to a man locked up in a madhouse. “ (G.K. Chesterton). I rest my case!! ❤️

[@georgedoyle7971]

“You said what I was thinking” “Hominids” “Neanderthals” Ho the irony!! Sorry but the irony is that you don’t even know the implications of your own world view because according to Nietzsche our search for truth is really a deep and complex way of hiding the truth. We could even say that rigorous, syllogistic, logical truth, insofar as it absorbs us, insofar as we find it impossible to doubt, insofar as we find it meaningful and significant, deflects us from the ultimate truth, the horror, emptiness, and meaninglessness of existence-it deceives. Furthermore according to the the National Academy of Science…. “Many people including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution." (National Academy of Science). So your literal interpretation of ancient texts is a straw man fallacy and (Cherry Picking Out of Context Fallacy). Further still, according to the (National Academy of Science)… "Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science." (National Academy of Science). “Neanderthals” “Hominids” Sorry but at least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist!! Because according to the atheist philosophers with possibly the highest IQs of all the atheists that ever lived…. “If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare “look, a mammal” I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. That is to say, it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be “true in itself” or really and universally valid apart from man.” Sorry but the fact is that… “You can’t get an (ought) out of an (is)” (David Hume). (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism) is… “The belief that the truth is that there is no truth” Sorry but everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it ridiculous…. At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist because according to the atheist philosophers with possibly the highest IQs of all the atheists that ever lived…. “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) “logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche) “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” - Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” In Will to Power, Nietzsche claims, "there is only one world, and this is false, cruel, contradictory, seductive, without meaning....We have need of lies in order to conquer this reality.” (Nietzsche) Reference: WP, 853, p. 451. Also TI, "'Reason' in Philosophy," 5, p. 37-8. Similarly, according to the atheist philosopher Albert Camus if you are a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist there is only one really serious philosophical problem…. “That is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. ... For the Camus of The Myth of Sisyphus, however, “Should I kill myself?” is the essential philosophical question.” (Albert Camus). Cheerful bloke I bet he’s a blast at parties!! Equally, Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism… “Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?” - (Nietzsche). The irony and the absurdity is that they are just being consistent with moral subjectivism/relativism. This is an unbelievably easy world view to critique and refute as it is littered with metaphysical presuppositions and self contradiction!! It clearly renders even the prescriptive laws of logic and science itself pointless and meaningless. It’s hardly surprising that the expert on modal logic and ground breaking philosopher Alvin Plantinga pointed out using the (evolutionary argument against naturalism) where the real conflict with science, truth, objective morality, universals and absolutes really is. According to the award winning philosopher Alvin Plantinga... “There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” (Alvin Plantinga) As I pointed out already everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have the right to find it ridiculous!! I rest my case!! No offence intended. All the best to you and your family and keep safe. Peace ❤️

[@jeffreyleerobinson]

@@georgedoyle7971 you make some good points here, in the history and personas of philosophy. and you are well-read. but two questions. * your points have nothing doing with Koukl's propaganda, grotesque projected deception, and biological historical blundering * nobody is asserting that Mr. Koukl doesn't have the right to lie, mislead or propagate as his deceived mind and heart see fit. so what exactly are you attempting to address?

[@drumrnva]

You have to wonder. The part of reality which gods are supposed to dominate has steadily shrunk, especially in the last two hundred years. As we gain understanding, gods recede. Will they eventually disappear? Might religious belief have been an aid to our ancestors' survival? I wonder about religion in 5000 years--whether it will exist and in what forms, etc. Wish I could be here to see it. :)

[@bgoins11]

I don’t wonder. I look at the stars and see God’s work. And in 5000 years if people are still around, they will also be able to look at the sky and see God’s work. We are not here because of matter, time and chance alone.

[@davidcooke8005]

When Adam and Eve decided to leave the garden of Eden, they could just go to the nearby city, same as Cane and Abel.

[@ricksonora6656]

Group settlements weren’t invented until severs generations later.

[@davidcooke8005]

@@ricksonora6656 Yet Cain and Abel were able to go to the nearest city to find wives. So the settlements existed prior to any new generations being born to Cain, Abel, and their city bred wives.

[@kayls2wd]

here's what I think I don't care if you guess don't want to believe this or not but Im just saying what I think is true. how should there be cavemen if God created Adam and Eve first? well they where smart and knew how to do things right? so if there were cavemen that means our species "down graded"? and everyone forgot how to speak and forgot how to use things? don't write me back bit if I were you I would take inconsideration of what I'm saying.

[@azophi]

I mean yes you're right lol.

[@SeraphsWitness]

What makes you think cavemen were stupid, or for that matter, that Adam and Eve were smart? Why would you think "cavemen" are a downgrade of humanity? I think you're injecting your own ideas about what "caveman" means.

[@Darwinsgift]

Funny how you assume that it was an atheist that asked the question. Why not a black African or a spiritual occultist psychic! I agree that it may be a question that was asked to test the knowledge of this man and it seems to have succeeded in showing shortfalls. Truth is important to many people rather than faith.

[@ricksonora6656]

Tying “black African” to asking a type of question will get you cancelled, today. Deservedly.

[@CarlosFuentes-cx9yl]

Dinosaurs did exist but cave men not a lot there is not that much proof

[@corazonnisperos3686]

To Carlos Fuentes, cavemen dont exist. if that answers your question.

[@georgedoyle7971]

“Cave men exist” “There is not that much proof” A caveman stands in the rain in order to cool down and get relief from the tropical heat. Another caveman hiding under the shelter of a giant leaf shouts, "Ug!, why you out in rain?" "Where rain" ? "Rain every where Ug!” "No it not." "Ug!? Water and fire fall from sky and you get eaten out in open." "That your opinion." "Not opinion. Fact. Raindrops fall. You look see little raindrops on my head? Ug have big raindrops on his head!” (Ug’s feet sink deeper into the mud as he replies....... "Don't need to look. Already know it not rain or fire!. Rain and fire God not real ha ha.” "Ug! If it not rain and fire, then why you wet and me dry and that Woolley Mammoths fur get frazzled last time it rained fire ?" (Ug pauses and replies.... “Me dry too” “Mouse that dig under Earth have better eyes sight than Ug! (Ug pauses) "Define 'wet' and eye site. . . " (Facepalm) “Argggh, Ug hurt mind like pounding of heavy rain on head turned to hailstones!" (The Caveman storms off in the rain in disgust away from Ug including the Zabertooth tiger and cannibal territory leaving Ug behind). Ug shouts after him “religious fanatic rain and fire God not real ha ha ha.” (Later after being spotted out in the open Ug has to run twice for his life from a Zaber toothed tiger and cannibals) The End... This story is pretty accurate description of what happens in most debates between strictly reductive materialists atheists or philosophical naturalists and theists. There is no such thing as a true skeptic as real skeptics wouldn’t survive a week in the wild never mind the concrete Jungle. Because the fact is that….. “you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see.” (C.S. Lewis). Our families and our children are clearly more than just biological and chemical robots . The qualitative experience of love, altruism, bravery, beauty, morals, ethics, meaning and purpose, that is mind and consciousness is clearly more than just an illusion created by “brain chemicals” and the random movement of atoms creating an illusion of stable patterns and rationality. According to the pioneer of quantum physics Werner Heisenburg “There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomising what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality.” (Werner Heisenberg). “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God,” (C.S. Lewis).

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@corazonnisperos3686 “Cavemen don’t exist” Prehistoric men are commonly referred to in the popular press, in literature and in films as ‘cave men’. The great majority of early humans, however, could not have lived in caves, because there were just not enough caves to accommodate them. Natural caves and rock-shelters are largely restricted to limestone country and vast areas of the land surface, on which early humans must have lived, simply have no caves. If these people had shelters at all, they must have been simple structures of branches, leaves and skins which stood no chance of preservation.” According to Derek Ager, emeritus professor of geology at the University of Swansea….. “It is not a matter of where they lived, but simply a matter of where they and their works happen to have been preserved. This is a problem that goes all through palaeontology. Usually we know only where fossils are preserved, not where the creatures they represent actually lived. Human remains in caves, often covered with stalagmite, are obviously more likely to be preserved than if they lay on the open ground surface” (New Scientist)

[@JesusMostHigh]

The better question to ask would be: Why did God create dinosaurs - what was the purpose? Also, what about all the death, disease, and disaster that involved the hominids which existed for millions of years before human beings came on the scene.

[@andyYoutubeEmail]

Why merely leave it just to dinosaurs… why did God create snakes or alligators or (fill in the blank). God's ways are above ours so just because "we" do not know why God created or did certain things in Scripture does not mean God did not. As for your comment about "millions of years" before humans came on the scene moves more into conjecture / speculation and not the topic at hand.

[@jcr65566]

I have read some thing call the Omphalos hypothesis, bt to me its a bit more to it then that I once had a real problem with creation For one thing our milky way galaxy it is over 100,000 light years across. if the universe was 6000 years old we would only be able to see about 6000 light years out in to space. A while ago I future it out Why we are able to see out side our own milky way galaxy to under stand this I found I had had to think in a different way Because I know now that there is a God And how God created it all and why God did it. And I feel it may be far be on any of mans Science to under stand this In the bible it states that God creates, by speaking things in to existence. if this was so There really was no big bang As every thing in the universe apart from the earth was created all at once and in one day And to under stand this We got to under stand what the bible and science is trying to tell us The bible states that when God created Adam. and Eve. They were a fully grown man. and woman. The same thing was with the trees on the earth the bible stated when They were only days old. They were fully grown. fruit trees. So it must have been the same thing with the universe and the stars in the sky. So this is why I can say Our milky way Galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. But God would have to have made our milky way Galaxy billions of years old. Because if God had not done it this way. We would only be able to see about 6000 light years out into space. So we would have not been able to see out side our own milky way Galaxy. Let alone see the other stars, or the other Galaxy's in the night sky. God is the creator of time Adam and Eve were created in one day. So When Adam and eve were one day old They were both fully grown man and woman But still only days old. This why God was able to walk and talk with them It was because When God had created them. they had instantly grown up with the memory of a long and happy childhood with God as their father. To further under stand this When the earth was also only a few days old. God had created the earth with a history of billion of years, A history of life that had live and died on it. To do this. God made time And God had bent it to do Gods will So life on earth only days old. had live billions of years on the earth And It didn’t just look billions of years old. it was billions of years old. Animal life going back millions of years had live and died and had been buried in the earth. This is where all the dinosaurs bone that had turn to stone had come from. The earth is still in the center of the universe. Though mans Science states The universe is not expanding out from a Central point into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as I can tell. When God created universe he created every thing in its own time This is how God did creation God spent only a day on the universe But spent 6 days creating the Earth And even though the earth gos around the Sun and is in the outer band of our milky way Galaxy The earth is still in the center of the universe. I have know about this since I was a child. As far back as I can remember it has all ways been so To me Creation and evolution are part of the same thing. For years going to church I have had real a spiritual battle over the first five book of the bible. I know there was more to what I was reading in the bible And was being told to us when we were kids in school For me was not what was written in the bible that was the problem it was people lack of understanding of it And What Jesus said about man trying to sharp what was written in the bible to serve man needs not God. needs It is a fact when Genesis was being writing the earth was truly billions of years old. Yet also really only a few years old. It was Gods love for us. That was is the true reason God created the earth. And why God made the stars in the sky I remember reading Look up in the night sky and see the wonder of the lord. It some time really is hard for us to think like the way God thinks So the first thing we got to do is to realize How we think When We build a house We build it one brick at a time But if God were to build that same house God would speak and the whole house would be built And it would be built all at once When we under stand this We can see how God can created vast arrears of space and God can do it all at once. But it dos not tell us why God created time. To be with us And God made the earth and the stars So God could be with us. God did this So God could walk and talk with us. We are God children and God is our Abba father God did all this because God truly loves us.

[@jcr65566]

Jimmy Do you belieave in God soon I supose it wont mater whether you or I are a Christen or not or you think your the antichrist. Evenuly We are all going to war with Islam.It be We kill them or they kill us And if they do get there hands on any one of us . they then wont kill you.They do some thing far worst. They take away your freedom. And all of your rights they enslave all of your family and your friends and every single Femle of any age that we know and love will be turned into a sex slave. You be will be force to pray five times a day. to a moon god you dont believe in any way. and if you find you don’t like this idea and tell any one of them to f off They will tie you up to a tree and cut you with a wip you will bleed a lot and pass out. Then they will continue again after you come to. Eventually well be be force to go to war for them and kill any one that gets in there way. Finally we reach old age And if we cant do this any more. then there retirement plan is the same one a farmer has for his farm dog. They will either shoot us in the head or cut our throat. Usually in front of our family and friends As they to are force to pray to Islam. And when this happends all mercy and compassion will be gone from the world. The only thing to look forward to is when we die Then we will probable end up in hell.any way 

[@JCMcGee]

Learn to spell...I can't even begin to read this crap until you learn to spell...The grammar I can work out...but this spelling will get you sent straight to hell,

[@jcr65566]

Jimmy there a demon in you. But it has not got a good hold on you yet. When it has you will start to hurt people who you feel annoy you . Every so called atheist I talk to said the same thing about my spelling. Try to find some way to fight it. Watch out for music it one of the tools a demon will use to lead you into hell. If you don't believe me lessen to the music you like, look in a mirror then watch your face change. Watch your eyes if its bad they will change to cats eyes. and and if your ears change shape you have got trouble.

[@JCMcGee]

Dude, there is most certainly a demon in you....a nasty little spelling demon. But don't panic, we have developed strong protection against these things, try using the incantation known as "education" or even the one known as "Library"....I'm sure that even the simple little one known as "spellchecker" would help....Remember, The good lord helps those who help themselves.

[@jcr65566]

Yeah but it helps if you spoke English all you life. You sure are a rude little shit LOL And all I'm trying to do is help you. Years ago . I had a demon.in me. When it attack me I hardly notes it but it hurt me over and over again And I did not even know it evenly it Later it l hurt me though people I care most about it will make you do things that will make them turn on you. In the end it just about nearly killed me. I wont say I wish this would happen to you Because after going though it I wouldn't wish it on any one. No mater what there done. All I like to say is I know by the way you talk the way you think. your heading to the same place I have been, Evenly you get weak. Than it will hurt you in way you never thought possible.

[@rem4441]

they never existed.

[@stardust2202]

and neither has your brain

[@corazonnisperos3686]

To Star Dust, seriously? i hope you're saying that to yourself.

[@rednecktrucker1969]

This is so funny, 20 years ago most xians would have fought you tooth and nail over this topic, now they have backed down. Once again science wins and religion goes deeper in the rabbit whole. Soon there will be no place for primitive gods to hide anymore and then finally humanity can rise above fear and become a better species.

[@georgedoyle7971]

“Science wins again” “soon their will be no primitive gods” “Rise above fear” Ho the irony!! Sorry but this is a straw man argument and is a symptom of stereotyping and bigotry. Not to mention the (Appeal to Scientism Fallacy). The irony is that according to the father of psychology what we all share whether we are atheists, deists, panentheists, agnostics or theists is an hierarchy of values and what ever is at the top of that hierarchy of values functions as God for you. Sorry but the only way to avoid being a metaphysician in a discussion about value is to say nothing!! Furthermore, the irony is that under “relativism” we are all on equal footing at the very least. Equally, the double irony is that you don’t even know the implications of your own world view because “value” claims including the prescriptive laws of logic that is (oughts) are metaphysical presuppositions that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. At least be a consistent strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist because according to the atheists with possibly the highest IQs of all the atheists that ever lived with regards to “truth” claims regarding the “value” of anything including the (value) of the “natural sciences”. “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) “logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche) “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” - (Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense) Sorry your world view and your existential crisis not mine!! “Science wins again” Sorry but what does (scientism) including nihilism and fatalism “win” exactly? Does (scientism) including nihilism and fatalism “win” because it’s “proven” beyond doubt that we are all nothing more than a accidental, meaningless by product of the blind, mindless process of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities? Sorry but this is a “value” claim buddy and the irony is that it’s circular and self refuting. You’ve just unwittingly committed the (Is/Ought Fallacy). Why should we take the nihilistic, fatalistic “value” claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously!! Under (scientism), nihilism and fatalism, that is under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism you are nothing more substantive than brain chemicals buddy. You are just a biological and chemical robot. Sorry but under this causally closed effectively complete system “you” are nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!! Can the science project of vinegar and baking soda take the credit for it circular logic and self contradiction!! If this self refuting world view is “true”, which is so unlikely it is incredible, why “ought” we take any of your claims to the rational and moral high ground seriously!! Unless you are actually claiming that there is something real such as a soul/self that exists outside this causally closed effectively complete (self) refuting system!!? Evidence please that a strictly reductive materialism atheism or philosophical naturalism can even get off the ground with regards to “truth” that is “value” claims. Evidence please not hubris and logical fallacies!! I’ll wait!! (Scientism/Logical Fallacy): “An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of “natural science” applied to all areas of investigation as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities” (Merriam Webster Library definition). I’m not making any appeals to authority but according to the award winning physicist William Bragg… “Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1915). Furthermore, in its publication (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science), the National Academy of Sciences explicitly asserts that religion and science answer different questions about the world. So your conflict myth between science and faith is exactly that!! a myth and a false dichotomy perpetuated by militant atheism!! Equally, according to the US National Academy of Science… "Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science." (National Academy of Science). Further still, the National academy of science also points out that, with regards to (origins) that is meaning and purpose, appeals to evolution and cosmic accidents are a philosophical, that is metaphysical presupposition that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Sorry but it’s not a question that can be answered using the “natural sciences” as this is a special pleading fallacy and question begging fallacy of the highest degree. So your ironic proselytising about (scientism) in a failed attempt to “prove” a (universal negative) is also a special pleading fallacy and a question begging fallacy of the highest degree: Because the fact is that… "Consequently, many people including many scientists, hold strong religious beliefs and simultaneously accept the occurrence of evolution." (National Academy of Science). Sorry but the “natural sciences” can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be. Equally, the irony is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything) a belief that at worst is synonymous with the belief in magic and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles. I don’t need secular myths and secular religion to know what right and wrong is! You do so the burden of proof is on you!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to lecture a bereaved mother during a pandemic who’s only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!! Sorry but everyone has the right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have the right to find it ridiculous, condescending and callous. I rest my case!!

[@georgedoyle7971]

“Rise above fear and become a better species” “No place for primitive gods to hide anymore” Now that’s ironic coming from someone who “hides” behind the cloak of scientific authority to proselytise about a strictly reductive materialism atheism or philosophical naturalism (scientism). The strictly reductive, materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists commitment to the gods of determinism and automatism condemns their myths to hollowness!! The irony is that according to the eminent atheist philosopher and Humanist Mary Midgley…. “Evolution, then, is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory” “Fatalism is now offered, not as just one possible philosophical attitude among others with reasons given for and against it, but as a fact backed by the tremendous authority of science.” (Mary Midgley). The fact is that we should be very afraid because…. No religion ever created a weapon with the potential to destroy our children and grandchildren’s future at the press of a button (nuclear weapons) for this kind of monstrosity you need secular twentieth century science/secular technology and physicists and secular scientists who believe that “science wins” is a scientific statement!! Furthermore, according to Johnathan Sacks the prominent public intellectual, philosopher, author and head of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth…. “Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights.”(Rabbi Johnathan Sacks) “The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace.” (J.R. Tolkien 1945). The twentieth century spilled more blood than the previous 19 centuries including all the centuries prior and it speaks volumes that it’s the one century that proudly proclaims “God is dead”. So the fact is that we should be very afraid of (scientism) and materialism of the gaps fallacies!! I rest my case!!

[@SeraphsWitness]

I don't remember any massive movement 20 years ago about dinosaurs not existing. I mean I'm trying to be generous, but having been a Christian for over 20 years, I've literally never heard anyone make that claim.

[@andyYoutubeEmail]

Yea that statement how Christians would have fought anyone who claimed dinosaurs existed is not at all true. I remember going to a "young earth" Christian college and required reading was Whitcomb's book "early earth" other books from Henry Morris which spoke of this in great length (as well as other topics related to a literal 6 day creation). So if "they" did not fight against dinosaurs why would we? Btw.... those books were from the early 70's so not 20 years but more 50 years ago and their position was mainstream among conservative Christians as we have today with Ken Ham.

[@Greivofficial]

Humanity will NEVER “rise above” anything without God and will certainly NEVER become a better species. The only thing we will become better at is killing ourselves and the wonderful creation that God made. Don’t be deceived. You are NOTHING! A worm.

[@jeffreyleerobinson]

First, Job is very vague about these creatures. You project they were "dinosaurs" because it's convenient for your mythology. Whatever helps you sleep at night, right? Second, Christians did make this claim and others like it as far back as 1857 by Philip Henry Gosse. It's called the Omphalos hypothesis. Way to show your ignorance of your own Christian history. If it didn't happen in the last 40 years, it's not significant! With intelligence like this, you make our job easy.

[@rickgray2465]

Yes the dinos and some people that lived in caves were around! All got wiped out in God's flood!!!

[@azophi]

nay ;-;

[@ricksonora6656]

There have always been people who live in caves. You have to define cave man more restrictively.

[@corazonnisperos3686]

i know this video is super old but.. dinosaurs and cavemen never existed. you see, the history of the bible would tell us. the first things that were made first were, 2 humans, and basically all the animals there could possibly be. but nope, no dinosaurs. no cavemen.

[@TruthNotRelative]

Would you like to make an attempt at explaining dinosaur fossils and bones?

[@andyYoutubeEmail]

Read the book of Job before you make such comments. Yes of course there were dinosaurs. No rational person would say otherwise.

[@TruthNotRelative]

@@cdobson3141 wow. That uhh, was all incredibly presumptuous of you. I mean you practically know everything there is no know about me. I mean you know more about me that my own parents. That’s amazing. It’s fine that you know things or that you think you know things, but when you address someone you’ve never even met before let alone had a conversation with, and yet you know everything about them already practically down to their mothers maiden name what’s there even to talk about right?

[@TruthNotRelative]

@@cdobson3141 Yaaa. No. Sorry. You’re extremely arrogant here. I didn’t even finish reading. I may attempt again later if I feel like being lectured by Mr. Know Everything.

[@andyYoutubeEmail]

@@cdobson3141 Well then give me the evidence that makes their existence incompatible with the Scriptures. Not merely saying “well that one translated word” is insufficient. How many times do we need dinosaurs mentioned in the Scriptures… 2.. 10? What “doctrine” am I teaching to say that dinosaurs existed? I’m a Young Earth creationists too. You then state that my belief is NOT supported yet to earlier referred to how they are mentioned in the book of Job but that was merely “one word” and not even a full sentence. So which is it… “not” mentioned or “merely mentioned once in less than a full sentence”? The answer is of course nothing in Scripture negates their existence and of course they are mentioned in Scripture. Are they mentioned a lot… no of course not but neither are whales mentioned “a lot”. So guess I’m not sure what you are saying. Please explain how they “cannot exist” because I don’t think I heard you say. Just many attempts to undermine the idea not using evidence but more name calling I guess such as “twisting the Scriptures”, etc.