Evolution is STUCK! Can Creation SAVE US? (feat Forrest Valkai)

[@williampayne541]

I'm surprised it took this long for you two to do something together! So glad it finally happened

[@klacethompson7790]

Yesssss!!!🙏🏽🙏🏽 praise Glob!! I need more Forrest in 2D😂🎉

[@prinfectorum6447]

Same here! They are two of my absolute favorites. I love seeing them on The Line together

[@Dr_Wrong]

They’re pretty much the opposite; Forrest : hyper, loud, emphatic - Paul : quiet, stalwart, understated.

[@Paulogia]

We've co-hosted The Line shows a few times, so yeah... it's about time!

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@Paulogia Now you're hosting the outline.

[@quinn0517]

"Smart person said 'paradigm', so if I say 'paradigm' two times I'll sound twice as smart." -this guy, probably

[@deva-qy3zh]

His whole argument can be turned on him: We had a previous paradigm to understand the world: the bible. It failed. We developed a superior paradigm: science. It has not failed. These fools want to go backwards.

[@ThroughtheLookingGlass-yg2fj]

Correct, the bible is fiction to be dismissed with prejudice and contempt.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

exactly; questioning the bible got you burned at the stake; just ask Giordano Bruno. Talk about an unquestionable paradigm

[@WS-dd8ow]

The irony of a dude using the internet to claim science has failed.

[@sbushido5547]

Problem is, the careers of people like this are built around pretending that the bible **hasn't** failed whenever they try to make it fit scientific discoveries/understanding.

[@mikepotts2470]

@@WS-dd8owbloody scientists obsessed with only addressing reality 😂

[@iluvtacos1231]

It's really funny hearing a young earth biblical creationist complain about scientists being "constrained" by the paradigm, when there are creationist organizations that will NOT HIRE YOU unless you sign a statement of faith saying you believe exactly as the organization does. Who's constrained again?

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Wow !! Great point !! And sooo true !!!

[@pineapplepenumbra]

Every accusation by these people is... well, everyone knows the saying by now.

[@DreadEnder]

For an example, the Ark Encounter. To be hired you must; 1. Be evangelical Christian 2. Believe in a global flood 3. Be virgin (unless married) 4. Not believe in evolution 5. Be creationist Among other things.

[@Colddirector]

It’s also funny that they assume evolution is an atheist plot to destroy Christianity when theistic evolution is a thing. They’re not even fighting to save their god, they’re fighting to save their narrow view of god

[@user-fb6te9mu2u]

Forrest's point about how science works to prove itself incorrect, NOT to prove itself correct, is so crucial to understand. Eliminate all the wrongs, what you are left with with is right. No belief or faith needed.

[@misslayer999]

After I lost my faith, it's science that I fell in love with and found meaning in. So much that I went back to school and I'm currently a non-traditional (aka old ass) neuroscience student. I'm taking the first of my many upcoming biology classes in January and I'm super excited. I adore Forest's educational style. His Light of Evolution series literally changed my entire view of the world. That's the first time in my life I learned about evolution. I know that's pretty sad, but I've definitely been working my ass off to play catch up, (and happy to say that my grades reflect that lol) I encourage anyone who wants/needs to learn about evolution, or has questions should check it out. It's absolutely fascinating and for me, it sparked a robust interest that I'm eager to continuously learn about. I appreciate it so much and yes I promise those kinds of videos do make a difference! Thanks for having him Paul💚💚💚

[@JosephKano]

Enjoy your learning journey! 😺 🎉 🍏 🍎

[@petrusk842]

That is SO cool! I also want to go back to school as an old ass student of the same subject! Nature truly is so magnificent. I also find comfort in learning about all the amazing ways thinking organs work throughout the natural world, especially in cephalopods and our lineage!

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

Me too! I fell in love with science. Which I didn’t expect to. I kinda fell into a science path simply because the classes had lots of math & no papers to write. After a decade of soul-searching & church hoping. I kept looking for truth inside my own brain or in holy books. Suddenly I realized that I was studying exactly what I’d been looking for: truth I can confidently defend. My interest in finding a religion seemed trivial in comparison. Especially studying biochemistry, learning exactly how electrons & atoms function to make cells work, to make all life function. It felt like touching god. To mis-quote Rocky Horror, I learned the secret to life itself! It’s self-replicating hydrocarbons! W/o which, life on earth would not exist! All hail the structure of the mighty carbon atom! How silly was I before, looking for a sense of my place in the universe through religion. Science shows everything started together as stardust. Which means I’m fundamentally one-with-the-universe. And all life is related & all humans are related, making me inherently part of something much bigger than myself. And my questions, not encouraged past a certain point in religious circles, were the fuel to my learning science. Because science is designed to welcome questions. Much as I wanted to join a religion, I could never look myself in the mirror & say I believed in the supernatural. In science, I never have to! (well, maybe for quantum mechanics!) So best of luck in your future studies in biology. And if you ever felt a missing god-sized hole in your heart, I recommend any course on abiogenesis or cosmology. Starting now, you’ll have something I envy, that I never had starting out three decades ago: female science professors! Hallelujah!

[@Soapy-chan]

animated and 2-dimensional Forrest still has more substance than any creationist

[@Dr_Wrong]

Prove it! Oh wait.. ..never mind 😂

[@MrGrumblier]

Not to mention far more depth.

[@Dr_Wrong]

Singularity Forrest has more depth.. js

[@eduardosantana8300]

Happy to see Forrest move away from the woo woo and do some science

[@marknieuweboer8099]

I read the name Ray Comfort. I think of bananas.

[@MrCanis4]

I even went to the bowl and had a Banana.

[@jamierichardson7683]

And an uncomfortable Kirk Cameron

[@mirandahotspring4019]

New Zealand has a lot to answer for, letting him lose on the world! And Australia has too, for Ken Ham. It's no coincidence that they both ended up in the USA where they could lie to bigger audiences and make themselves millionaires.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

Australia has enough snakes so they had to have at least one overflow to the US😂@mirandahotspring4019

[@stevewilson6193]

its almost like the name was designed to make you think that!

[@CatDaddyGuitar]

I used to be a Christian, then my paradigm shifted because of logic and science.

[@SaturmornCarvilli]

Creationist: "Life can't come from non-life." Some Dude: "Then how you think life came to be?" Creationist: "It was just blinked into existence by a magic man. Except man, who came from non-life." Some Dude: "You don't even see your contradiction, do you?" Creationist: "What contradiction?"

[@Cheepchipsable]

It came from mud!

[@nathanmiller9918]

Um...you're forgetting breath and dirt. s/

[@frogandspanner]

1) A scientific hypothesis makes predictions within a _domain of applicability_ , and if these work out it is known as a theory. 2) We form a working hypothesis that the domain is universal, and continue to test to probe the veracity of that hypothesis. 3) If (2) fails then (1) is still true, but we modify theory (1) to extend its domain, or produce a new theory with a new domain.That does not make (1) false, just restricted. e.g. Newtonian gravity works fine within its domain, and very few real-world calculation we do extend beyond this domain, but when they do (e.g. GPS) we use the theory (GR) that extends to the required domain. At no point is magic required.

[@Oliviathespud]

Was really excited to see this Forest was the guy who first convinced me YEC stuff was nonsense, and Paul you convinced me the theological side of Christianity was the same. Thank both of y'all 🫶

[@Paulogia]

I'm so pleased that we could help.

[@RenegadeScienceTeacher]

That's wonderful to hear! Thank you so much for watching!

[@bretsheeley4034]

Creationists: "Science has been wrong before!" Scientists: "Yeah. At first we thought it was 3.14. Then we thought it was 3.14159265. Then we though it was 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982. Then we thought it was 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010654858632788659361533818279682303019520353018529689957736225994138912497217752834791315155748572424541506959508295331168617278558890750983817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429555961989467678374494482553797747268471040475346462080466842590694912933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935112533824300355876402474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653449872027559602364806654991198818347977535663698074265425278625518184175746728909777727938000816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685481613611573525521334757418494684385233239073941433345477624168625189835694855620992192221842725502542568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929848960841284886269456042419652850222106611863067442786220391949450471237137869609563643719172874677646575739624138908658326459958133904780275900994657640789512694683983525957098258226205224894077267194782684826014769909026401363944374553050682034962524517493996514314298091906592509372216964615157098583874105978859597729754989301617539284681382686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246808459872736446958486538367362226260991246080512438843904512441365497627807977156914359977001296160894416948685558484063534220722258284886481584560285060168427394522674676788952521385225499546667278239864565961163548862305774564980355936345681743241125150760694794510965960940252288797108931456691368672287489405601015033086179286809208747609178249385890097149096759852613655497818931297848216829989487226588048575640142704775551323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357395231134271661021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420073105785390621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484810053706146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799983910159195618146751426912397489....." Creationists: "So you could be wrong again, and the answer is actually 58 plus pretzel!"

[@shassett79]

I like pointing people to Asimov's classic essay _The Relativity of Wrong,_ which essentially makes this exact point.

[@Kelley_X]

I like the idea of improved approximations. “The Earth is flat” - reasonable approximation for small distances. “The Earth is round” - better approximation, works over longer distances. “The Earth is an oblate spheroid” - even more accurate if you need more exacting measurements for some reason. “The Earth is an oblate spheroid with non-uniform gravity” - even more accurate for even more specific measurements. Sure, sometimes science does throw some things out, or sometimes a radical discovery, but a lot of the time it’s gradual improvements. Standing on the shoulders of giants.

[@marymegrant9438]

Your example of the successive improvement for values of pi is a bad example for scientific method Archimedes knew he was calculating an approximation to pi as far back as 250 BC. This is long before the discipline of science was established. Mathematics is based upon pure reasoning, not on empirical observation.

[@davidwise1302]

(22:44) Again with George Wald? Won't they ever give him a rest? It was three decades ago that a creationist "quoted" George Wald. When I finally tracked down that article (public access to the Internet was still half a decade in the future and I was still working for a living), I discovered that the quote was a forgery; it was nowhere to be found in the "cited" article. Of course now we are all very experienced with creationist quote-mining, but we tend to always remember our first time.

[@JosephKano]

The Russians thought they dug the deepest hole in the earth. Still not as deep as an apologists quote mine though.

[@davidwise1302]

@@JosephKano I just may borrow that metaphor for later use; eg, despite all their extensive quote mining, creationists have still not struck oil ... and they never will. I have to work on that more.

[@George4943]

Evolution was observed. A simple theory was proposed. In a population where there is descent with small changes those which can survive better than their kin come to dominate the population. This is a useful paradigm.

[@Specialeffecks]

Agreed. I wish more people understood this simple, yet powerful fact of evolution. Millions of things (most life) had to die to leave us (and other life forms) with the survival traits that allowed us to remain - populations sufficiently suited to their environment to reproduce at a rate that has (so far) sustained that population. Everything else is extinct - and more will become extinct as changing environments and adaptation/evolution allow or not.

[@George4943]

@@Specialeffecks A simple theory. But the way that biology actually does it, replicating from a 1 cell zygote into a trillion cells is horrendously complicated. Chemical signals changing just which part of the genome to use for _this_ cell or that. Metabolism that would make Rube Goldberg realize his stuff was child's play. The process to make another zygote goes out of its way to get there. And, oh the time it took to get this complex. Not 100 years, not 1000. Not even 1000 times 1000 years. Many experiments in a million years with trillions of experiments in parallel all the time. This was repeated 1000 times to find the origin of life. Maybe double that. There was a replicator. It could have been quite simple. It became 2, then 4, and so on. Mistakes were made and almost always produced a non-replicator. A few were different but still retained the replication ability. This experiment a billion times a billion times chanced upon a better way to replicate at each stage of the evolution of chemical replication to cellular life. You are entirely unique. Exactly one person has your exact genome. Every one of your ancestors all the way back to chemicals replicated. Such a simple theory. Applied over and over in unimaginable times for an unbelievable number of tries.

[@juanausensi499]

100% right. Even if we never observed evolution, we would have deduced it eventually, because when you have genetic material that varies and changing environmental pressures, evolution is just inevitable

[@pineapplepenumbra]

@@juanausensi499 Agreed. I often point out to deniers (who, so far, have ALL been dishonest) that it's simple common sense; ie that whatever organisms are better suited to a given environment will pass on their genes more successfully, and that small changes over small periods lead to massive changes over massive periods. These people deny REALITY, every chance they get.

[@christophercuston]

And that denial has led to people questioning religion itself. Religion "had" a chance to accept evolution as a power of god's creation ability. But nope, the "Our book is the truth and has no mistakes." -Some religious person

[@alp5088]

Del seems like he forgot he had a presentation coming up and had only 15 minutes to turn something in....he read something about paradigms and that sounded good enough.

[@stevewebber707]

Kind of like a preacher preparing a sermon the night before? (On a subject they are totally unequipped to tackle)

[@arpy4428]

You got Forrest's hair perfect for his character portrait!

[@Paulogia]

ha! thanks

[@rc7625]

​@@PaulogiaWhy is he a redhead here though? Isn't Forrest a brunette?

[@WattaYog]

Paul and Forrest teaming up?! Christmas did come early!!!

[@erinelizabethmsw5137]

Right???

[@klodius8588]

Paradigm or not paradigm? That is the paradigm!

[@benevolentworldexploder5395]

I'm just imagining that meme with the two red buttons, and they both say paradigm.

[@margretrosenberg420]

I have a friend who claims to be psychic. She's absolutely convinced of it and is rather bitter that she can't get scientists to take her claims seriously. You see, she explains, the *reason* no one can prove that ESP works is that the presence of people who don't believe in it squelches the ability. If only we *believed* we'd be able to prove it. She was quite offended when I told her that's not how science works (even though she already knows that). Sigh. Magic may not exist, but magical thinking thrives.

[@pansepot1490]

That’s exactly the same as religious thinking. Prayers don’t work because you don’t believe hard enough. You can’t hear Jesus because you don’t believe in him, and so on.

[@billyjacobs190]

What if you tape her doing a reading with someone who believes?

[@user-fb6te9mu2u]

But there's something to this. This is why religions love getting children brainwashed at a young age. If you get them very early to believe no matter what that the church should rule the government--it eventually does happen. Get kids to believe absolutely ridiculous garbage, eventually you have a whole society believe that garbage, and then that garbage "becomes" truth. That's called the Dark Ages, and boy are we headed to that.

[@braedenmclean5304]

So she is mad that confirmation bias is thrown out when trying to make scientific claims?

[@ShinyAvalon]

Yes, that's roughly similar to the placebo effect. And also analogous to the experiment where sub-average students were put in a class with a teacher meant for above-average students, and vice versa...at which point the students began to perform according to the teachers' expectations. Certain human abilities - creativity or physical performance, for instance - are highly effected by the attitudes and actions of the people around us. There's nothing "unscientific" about that, though it does make designing experiments much more complex when measuring human ability.

[@Firemalleoandjelly]

0:14 The fact these guys think Evolution is so simple it can explained in 15 minutes is a fool.

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

As a former creationist who grew up listening to Ray 'banana man' Comfort, it's more that they aren't intending on actually listening to anything being said. They feel that if they can 'win' a debate, that makes their reality correct. They can always 'win' the debate in their own minds by simply ignoring any presented evidence and just misdirecting with something about their interpretation/tranlation/version of one of the multiple different bibles being internally consistent and perfect.

[@joyousdog1]

The calm of Paul and the energy of Forrest, the humor and fine analytic minds of both - what a treat! And the cartoon captures Forrest's amazing hair quite well.

[@Dr_Wrong]

Einstein head.

[@jamiehudson3661]

Wow - analytic minds? You really have drank the atheist Kool- Aid. You don't even know if what these two dunder heads are saying is even true or not.

[@Dr_Wrong]

@ For the bone casting caveman witchdoctor-worshippers (aka christians) the word “analyze” means “think.” I know words are hard to figure out compared to grunts, squeals, and shrieks, but I have faith that someday christians too will finally decide to evolve beyond a sea slug.

[@hank_says_things]

Gotta love it when creationists accuse scientists of being dogmatic and exclusionary of opposing beliefs and beholden to pre-existing beliefs. This, from a guy whose culture makes people sign pledges of allegiance to God & creation before they're allowed to study or work at creationist orgs

[@DoctorBiobrain]

He’s just describing his own belief system and assumes everyone does the same. He’s the one trapped in a paradigm that ignores all evidence that doesn’t fit.

[@pineapplepenumbra]

He's trapped in a Paradigm paradigm where, if he doesn't say "paradigm" often enough, the paradigm will shift so dramatically that something very bad will happen to him.

[@billyjacobs190]

"I don't understand science, and I need to protect my children from understanding it." This guy is actually annoyed we can only know what we can show. "Yeah, but magic."

[@sirilay]

Fun fact: in any study on intercessory prayer, there's never a control group that's not being prayed over. There are constantly theists addressing all humans on Earth in their prayers, or all sick people. Which just means their prayers really aren't working in any sense.

[@LegendofMatt]

I once had an argument with someone who actually still held to spontaneous generation, needless to say it did not go well for either of us lol

[@MartijnHover]

The question is: Are these creationists incredibly stupid, or are they just plain dishonest? This guy worked in "artificial intelligence", or so he claims. While he himself is a prime example of natural stupidity. 😀

[@bc2112320]

Yes. Both

[@christasimon9716]

We create artificial intelligence, and immediately behind it is artificial stupidity.

[@Nymaz]

It's neither. What they are is a prime example of the way our emotions and childhood conditioning can cloud our judgement of the evidence in front of our faces. Look at it this way - imagine someone walks up to you and gives you absolute undeniable proof that it is possible to fly under your own power. Would you then say "oh wow, it's neat to know that I was wrong all my life" and walk off a cliff with no hesitation? Or would that lifetime of certainty that walking off a cliff equals death mean you would still be afraid to do so? Would you be sure that this proof was some kind of trick and start throwing out increasingly absurd scenarios to prove how this guy HAD to be faking it? When people say that religion is "conditioning" or "indoctrination", they're dismissed as an "edgy online atheist", but that's exactly the case. It's why religions are so concerned with introducing their concepts to children as early as possible. Because if you can make this "knowledge" part of the foundational structure of a developing brain, putting it aside becomes incredibly difficult or impossible.

[@L_o_c_a_l_G_u_y]

Option C: Desperate

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Both. Honest creationists are unafraid of challenges and evidence. They're wrong, but they don't know that. Eventually they learn, and either stop being creationists, or become dishonest. THOSE types can be recognized by the way they will do ANYTHING but present evidence or address the point.

[@0125AR]

I'm going insane with paradigm! If I had a pair of dimes for everytime he says paradigm I'd have like 5 dollars 😂

[@Kevin_Williamson]

I have to confess that I involuntarily roll my eyes and laugh derisively whenever I hear words like "truth" and "family values" being applied to or by Christians about themselves. Because neither label is anywhere in the same universe as accurate. To draw a comparison, it's as factual as declaring President-Elect Orange Felon is an honest, trustworthy, thoughtful, caring, Godly adult. And I like Forrest. He seems pretty cool and is an effective science communicator.

[@markrothenbuhler6232]

This one's for Forrest Valkai: Paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm.

[@joyousdog1]

Paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm paradigm. Also, paradigm. Because paradigm.

[@DarkRanger1975]

And don't forget the other paradigm, which leads to the paradigm, paradigm, paradigm.

[@Dr_Wrong]

BANG!

[@davidofoakland2363]

I DARE YOU! SAY "PARADIGM ONE MORE TIME"!!!

[@christophercanadatheist]

The paradigm paradigm is one of the biggest paradigm paradigms of the current paradigm.

[@Rogstin]

_"Do they speak English in Paradigm?!"_

[@thegoat5141]

_P... P... Paradigm?_

[@Dr_Wrong]

I speak Paradigmian..

[@mre6330]

Parrot time. 🦜

[@david2869]

20 cents, Pair of dimes

[@riluna3695]

Since Forrest was too exasperated by the end to notice (and boy do I not blame him), I'll point out the final infuriating contradiction of the video. 43:06 Del finishes by reading a quote from Kepler and adding the following on top: "THAT is a Scientific paradigm that is _not_ constrained by naturalism, but is allowed to look at the evidence to see the Creator." This is what he proposes in place of a paradigm he (wrongfully) claims is "married to" dogmatic thinking, that absolutely FORCES people to purely naturalistic conclusions (rather than those being the only kinds of conclusions that ever pass the tests of the scientific method). He rails for the entire video about paradigms that force specific conclusions and toss out anything that doesn't fit, and he has the GALL to say, without even bothering to hide the fact behind obfuscating language, that the preferred alternative is a paradigm that tosses out any conclusion that doesn't fit with a creator god. Just openly and honestly, both said and shown on screen. And you know what? This is the tactic they ALWAYS use. Spend an entire video villifying science to the Nth degree, claiming it does all these horrible things like force rigid dogmatic thinking, base all their conclusions on brazen unproven assumptions, lead otherwise-moral people who believe in it to commit horrible crimes, and any little accusation they find within reach. But the reason those accusations ARE within their reach is because what they end up proposing in science's place actually DOES do all of those things! I mean seriously, try getting an explanation out of ANY Christian, of any sect, of why things like morality, logic, and order all prove the existence of a God, that _doesn't_ involve the baseless unspoken assumption that they simply can't happen naturally, because why _would_ they be able to? It's just assumed. But the entire argument for why they prove a God is found in why it can't be explained by anything _except_ a God. So this silent assumption is doing 100% of the work to prove their point, and yet goes completely unexplored despite all the time people spend talking about these supposed proofs in their videos. It's infuriating. Don't fall for the bait-and-switch. At the very least, spend a few minutes checking to see if the person you're listening to is doing exactly the thing they're accusing "the enemy" of doing. Because when it comes to religious apologists, there's almost never a time where they aren't.

[@LanceHall]

There's not enough animators in the World to draw Forrest's actual mannerisms.

[@ilovethe80sNW]

"Get all the way bent dude." Made my coffee come out my nose!!🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@MartyMicdart2012]

How the hell is humanity gonna survive if they don’t listen to facts.

[@PassiveSmoking]

It probably won't.

[@MartyMicdart2012]

@ not surprised, well if it helps Christians cope with reality and death by all means let them be and leave Christians behind and let’s focus on how to survive in the real world.

[@rainbowkrampus]

Most of human history involved a great deal of "not listening to facts". Sure the mortality rate was very high, but we still got this far. Nothing saying we can't retvrn to tradition and see infant mortality rates above 50% and near endless periods of warfare. There will be fewer of us but we can muddle through a surprising amount of shit. Now if you ask about our modern civilizations? They won't. They are cooked. In some regions of the globe quite literally.

[@George4943]

Paradigms evolve. The successful ones survive.

[@miskatonic_alumni]

Which is why, apart from a few astro-turfed cults, paradigms like biblical inerrancy and creationism have been largely consigned to the trash can of history.

[@undeadf]

You managed to mostly capture the wild nature of Forrest's hair, color me impressed

[@markstyles1246]

I initially skimmed that as, "You mostly got the concept of Forrest's hair." and was like, concept of hair is a fair enough statement.

[@undeadf]

@markstyles1246 I mean Forrest's hair can only be understood on a conceptual level

[@peregrinef3203]

So let me see if I understand his argument correctly: Paradigm paradigm paradigm, but paradigm paradigm the paradigm paradigm to paradigm. Therefore creation.

[@shassett79]

You forgot to point out that the paradigm "rules and reigns," but you're otherwise correct.

[@peregrinef3203]

@shassett79 ah yes. Thank you for the clarification. I am now a young earth creationist.

[@shassett79]

@@peregrinef3203 No, no, you've misunderstood! You can't be a creationist because naturalism both rules *and* reigns! If it only ruled or reigned, I could let this slide, but we're talking about both here.

[@Dr_Wrong]

Earlier Paradigms only ruled, until they met girl Paradigms that reigned. With enough baby paradigms being born, eventually they evolved to rule AND reign. The paradigm paradigm predicts that paradigms will eventually evolve to also dictate, demand, and command. /s 😂😂😂

[@shassett79]

@@Dr_Wrong I mean, human history does provide evidence that ruling and/or reigning have been heritable to some extent...

[@pmtoner9852]

So the current Paradigm is going to be overthrown for one that's previously shown to be inadequate from 500 years ago

[@BIayne]

Seeing Forrest's Paulogia doodle made me realize he has never been on this channel before! This is gonna be good! 🍿🍿🍿

[@Firemalleoandjelly]

36:12 Humans are good at recognising patterns, too good. We can see patterns that are not there. It's why we can see a sheep or a faces or anything else in a cloud that we have seen before.

[@bitcores]

Deep time basically came along because the natural processes for forming rocks started to become understood which then made the question of how fossils got trapped in those rocks in short time frames difficult to answer. And the answer isn't as simple as just the Flood buried all the creatures, because flood depositions are characteristic. If God caused them by miracles (including the Flood) then it made some look like calm shallow sea depositions that would take tens of thousands of years, it made others look like seasonal flooding events, it made some look like wind borne deposits, it made some look like volcanic ash deposits (which are not mentioned in the Flood account at all, but at inserted by groups like AiG because there are ash deposits in what they consider Flood layers) and it made them all look like local depositions. Effectively, what they wrestled with was that if it was all caused by a global flood, then God made it look like it wasn't a global flood. And the way YEC groups tend to deal with it is to just lie about the geology. They just say it is all flood deposits and don't elaborate further.

[@lorenclark6279]

This is why Forrest is so great at this. Easily one of the best science people on YT.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Crick did not discover DNA. He and Watson discovered the structure of DNA. Not the same thing.

[@Greenmaninthedesert]

Have you seen the memes about orange cats sharing a single brain cell? These outstanding theists are the human equivelant.

[@cesariglesias297]

In single brain cells defense two overworked neurons filled with any holy books tales are a little distracted to make some paradigms

[@505Hockey]

Dealing with all the misinformation and lies on the internet is like trying to mop up with a hurricane with a Q-Tip. I appreciate the effort; it must be exhausting.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

Not only does life take things that are not alive and uses them to keep itself alive. Our entire bodies are quite literally made out of parts that by themselves are not alive. It makes sense for life to come from non life as we are literally life made out of non living stuff.

[@realdjungleskog]

Forrest coming in hot with a Homestar Runner deep cut reference.

[@dylanhunt3855]

The Theory of Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a belief. One cannot be “saved” by the other. Nor can one refute the other. The Theory of evolution can be falsified. The belief of creationism is impervious to falsification. One is from science, which is based on facts. The other must simply be taken on faith.

[@pmtoner9852]

Mr mellow meets mr happy for the ultimate creationist takedown

[@chris_troiano]

The chemistry was so good here, even in cartoon form! I have wondered before about how Paulogia collabs are done - how much is scripted out individually first, how the back and forth is written, how much is just unscripted conversations. I got the sense here it was just buds sitting together and having a chat while they watch something. So natural, Forrest is so good at what he does. (Chemistry wasn’t meant to be a science pun. It’s not even the right field!)

[@socstud0]

Love the video and i'm a huge fan of Forrest! What a paradigm that we paradigm in this paradigm!

[@petersage5157]

Okay, who had 7:00 in the "I swear to glob" pool? You know we bet on how long it's going to be before Forrest says that.

[@allendesomer]

Call me crazy, but the many layers upon layers of mind blowing complexity in biological systems makes me disbelieve that a creator could ever imagine it all into being.

[@tobinfolly901]

While I have no problem with thinking that there could be things 'outside the box', I do have a problem with thinking those things should take precedence in our thinking over things 'inside the box' - because that's just saying that we should build our thinking around things we, definitionally, can't know rather than the things we do know. And that's ludicrous.

[@adamstricker1616]

Kuhn is one of the things that remains most lodged in my brain from graduate school.

[@IheartDogs55]

Paul & Valkai are a good duo! The time just flew!

[@Skeptic236]

I watch this and shake my head about the discourse on science in America. In Australia in 2005 more than 70,000 scientists and science teachers published an open letter in national newspapers titled "Intelligent design is not a science". The last paragraph said it all "We therefopre urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science. To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat earth cosmology or alien abductions- and crown out the teaching of real science". There is no national debate on the teaching of creationism in public schools here. Sadly, the US (in some quarters at least) seem to yearn to return to a simpler time when people died from stepping on a rusty nail, or could not determine the onset of weather, or believed the moon was made of cheese , before science cured or assisted in the correct knowledge for mankind, the Earth and the Universe.

[@CharlesPayet]

I’m so jealous.

[@ritchie6162]

Can you take back Ken Hamm please 😭

[@Skeptic236]

@@ritchie6162 Sorry, he went from Queensland for a reason. In Australia he would be looked upon as a crackpot, in USA he starts a theme park. Sort of says something of what he is selling, and the market.🤔

[@nathanjasper512]

Its funny because I saw the drawing and knew it was a drawing of Forest. 😂 You captured him perfectly.

[@warmachineuk]

As far as I can tell, there are four methodologies for understanding the world and everything in it: deductive reasoning, meditation, scientific method, and wishful thinking. Getting drunk and spouting ideas is just another form of wishful thinking. Each have their own strengths and area of application. When it comes to demonstrable usefulness and correctness of the natural world, scientific method is a unparalleled success. All others are abysmal failures. Even though scientific method is restricted by the presumption of naturalism. Even attempts to modify or hybridise scientific method are failures. Science might adopt a different paradigm than naturalism? Could have fooled me.

[@Cheepchipsable]

You forgot, "Educated Wish".

[@jamesdownard1510]

@10:00 one supreme fallacy of the Paradigm Shift trope as used by creationists is that THE DATA of the old paradigm don't go away, and still need to be accounted for. Since antievolutionism literally (and measurably) miss 90% of the data field, they're not in the Paradigm wannabe running.

[@stevewebber707]

I hope Forrest got snacks or something to participate in addressing that brain rot. He deserves some of Godless Granny's famous cookies!

[@rochelebierhalspereira7106]

Forrest as a cartoon is the most accurate cartoon in Paulogia ever. Also "say paradigm ONE MORE TIME"😂

[@Dr_Wrong]

This is my paradigm, this is my gun. This is for science, this is for evolu-tion.

[@mikepotts2470]

Surely one of the earliest paradigms utilised to attempt to make sense of the world was theism but why then is that excused from being replaced by more scientific explanations based on evidence?

[@phileas007]

Wait, so this guy is salty because he's convinced that scientists are contractually obligated to disregard magical explanations and that's why they are all evilutionists? And I thought that it was specifically the creationists, who need to sign a statement of faith. In unrelated news: I've just discovered that wallets are comfier than slippers and I'm never going back.

[@VividSmash40]

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE WANTED ever since I found Forrest on my FYP. Dude puts so much work into his projects, it's such a joy to see him making his rounds. Now I just need more Erika collabs, since I found her through a collab with Forrest from more than a year ago. Good job guys!

[@JaniceinOR]

If you also like call-in shows, Erika and Forrest frequently appear together hosting a call-in session on The Line (run by Jimmy Snow, aka Mr Atheist I think). Their episodes typically go 4-7 hours because they are both so enthusiastic.

[@RebeccaRaven]

Oh, this was fun and interesting viewing!

[@kerianhalcon3557]

Two videos uploads with Forest today, and this one adds Paulogia. It must be the Solstice, what a gift! If I don't see ya again Happy Solstice Everyone!

[@TreVader1378]

Del has only just heard the word paradigm, that's why he's using it so much.

[@finestPlugins]

He has to use it repeatedly to remember it.

[@autonomouscollective2599]

“Paradigm” was the Word of the Day on his desk calendar that day.

[@andrewede7154]

As someone with an actual degree in philosophy of science, I can tell you creationists have no idea what they are talking about.

[@Szadek23]

Take a shot every time he says paradigm.

[@CatDaddyGuitar]

I'd be wasted in the first 20 minutes

[@Forest_Fifer]

I don't have enough alcohol in the house, even though it's Xmas next week.

[@bitcores]

16:20 Ok, but how do you gather scientific evidence for things outside the physical world? That doesn't seem like something that is possible to me. What I am worried about is that Del isn't saying we have scientific evidence of non-physical-world actions, but rather that we aren't taking into account the possibility of miracles. The problem for him is that when we have the possibility of either a miracle or a previously unknown physical process on the table, it is always the second one that evidence is found for, because that's the ONLY one we can find evidence for.

[@Oswlek]

There is no such thing as "outside" the physical world because "physical world" is not a thing in this context. "Physical" has utility when discussing the difference between a tree and a thought about a tree, but it has none when talking about external reality. Whatever is out there is just out there, and if something is made of something fundamentally different than we've encountered before (souls and gods are made of _something_ if they are real), that just tells us that reality can manifest is more ways than previously understood. Ultimately, science is not limited to what is physical, it is limited to what is _detectible._ If the thing you are proposing has a detectible influence, it is within the scope of science. If it does not, then how can you say you know anything about it?

[@peddler931]

I would have expected an omnipotent god to give our cells fuel injection instead of a carburettor.

[@DracoJ]

The introduction of Forest sounds like something that came out of llamas with hats..

[@darbymori350]

What is the grift for these Creationists? Are they making a lot of money from the miseducated evangelical community? Why do they keep going (delusion or money?)? And if they truly believe in god, aren't they afraid of going to hell for lying?

[@Paulogia]

Answers in Genesis raises well over $100 million per year.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

Confirmation bias is one he'll of a drug. Also a lot of religious people are told that donating to the church is a good deed and so when people are constantly told they are sinners, they believe doing good things might save them a spot in heaven.

[@AndromedaD]

I love the Valkai Labs shirt drawing in particular. One of my favorite guest sprites

[@stevedixon9734]

Taking a break from Forrest Valkai videos to watch Paulogia w Forrest Valkai

[@Errickfoxy27]

38:09 I paused here to say "WHAT?!" Just the statement that CSIs have to consider supernatural causes to find murderers is utter insanity.

[@markhackett2302]

Next time a crime takes place, just say God Did It. Simples.

[@OscarSommerbo]

I have noticed that religion doesn't foster the sense that being wrong is good, but rather that winning and being right, no matter what, is the ideal to strive for. This, of course, informs their thinking and the idea that they just have to prove X wrong to win, as the default is they are right. And it further illuminates their fascination with the "prophets of scientism", because if they can discredit them, by any means necessary, then the only logical result for atheists/scientist/whomever would be to assume their worldview is the only correct one. And I do think this is where a lot of friction comes from.

[@rainbowkrampus]

"that winning and being right, no matter what, is the ideal to strive for." I don't really think it does that either. What it does is foster a sense of identity which is tied to the presupposition that a set of ideas is true and cannot possibly be not true. That's why they fall into that behavior of needing to be right at any cost. The belief and their identity are conflated, to dismantle one is to dismantle the other. It is, in effect, to die.

[@heiyuall]

“Paradigm paradigm paradigm!” -yec geenyus “Monorail monorail monorail!” -Simpsons grifter

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

Imagine if a religion focused on proving itself wrong, as science does.

[@Molemo-r6s]

Your friends have been trying but failed

[@drsatan9617]

​@Molemo-r6shis friends aren't part of the religion. So you clearly didn't understand the assignment

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

@Molemo-r6s 2000 years and 44,000 variations of christianity that dont agree with each other......

[@Molemo-r6s]

@SNORKYMEDIA still agree on one thing, and the only thing that matters. You guys think that's an argument but all organized religions are going to have denominations, unless their radical. Stay humble

[@bernierasmusson9257]

​@Molemo-r6sThe only thing that matters on this subject is that there is no evidence for the existence of any god. Discussions of what could be are irrelevant.

[@biogopher]

2 of the best creators on KZbin in animated form? Hell yes

[@Devious_Dave]

Creationism stinks of paradigmatic desperation. (I don't know what that means exactly but the words sound nice to me) 😀

[@TheWuschi]

Never before gave a 45 minutes video such a huge big smash on the LIKE button after 2ish minutes - Forrest Valkai Cartoon touched my heart to the bottom!!

[@robertpearson5410]

So. Make a list of all the things we use in society that were produced through the paradigm of science and compare it against all the things we use in society that were produced through the paradigm of religion and compare. How many antibiotics were produced from reading the Bible?

[@Kelley_X]

Yeah, but look at all the tax-free dollars religions make :(

[@bariumselenided5152]

His first point is so funny to me. "Some scientific models get supplanted. Therefore, evolution doesn't happen." Absolute travesty of thought.

[@yotest3697]

Someone explain to me what is the ultra contradicting, inaccurate, sex-loaded fairy tale saving us from?

[@sergei_mikhailovich]

Oh, my Glob, Paulogia and Forrest Valkai together in a collab!

[@ksbrst2010]

Somehow he speaks not very much about Genetic Drift and Evolution or their mathematical concepts. The real foundations in todays Biology.

[@TheParadoxDestroyer]

Did I just wake up in an alternate reality where science doesn't exist?

[@sergiodelrio4369]

The worst Is that they aré proud of it

[@shanewilson7994]

of course they are proud of their ignorance, because that's all they have.

[@TheOwlman]

13:16 Oh Forrest, Charles Darwin was not hired as a naturalist on the Beagle, he was "hired" as a gentleman companion to the captain, Robert Fitzroy, who feared a long voyage without a social equal would lead him to taking his own life like his uncle, Viscount Castlereagh. The official naturalist was Benjamin Bynoe, the ship's doctor, who is now pretty much forgotten despite his own field notes being consulted by Darwin for his Origin of Species. Ironically Fitzroy, despite his vast wealth, did ultimately take a straight razor to his own throat many years later after financing the instrumentation of several UK weather stations and instituting the first weather forecasting service in the mid 1800s, which went on to be the UK Met Office. He is commemorated these days in the name of the UK shipping forecast area Fitzroy, which replaced the name Finisterre (end of Earth) in 2002 to avoid the clash with the Spanish area Finisterre which was in a similar but not identical area.

[@JosephKano]

Sounds like a predilection to depression or something? Very sad.

[@TheOwlman]

@@JosephKano I think so. At the time of his death he seemed to have it all so it has to be something clinical which may have been in the family genes. He also used his personal wealth to purchase something like 18 of the Harrison H4 chronometers for the Beagle voyages to add to the 4 official ones that were being tested in a longitude measurement around the equator, and each one cost a mint, so he was quite the philanthropist. There are a few remaining Fitzroy coastal stations that he personally financed, complete with their instruments, so he isn't totally forgotten.

[@MrGrumblier]

Well, if one considers that Christian apologists base their objections to evolution on a 2000 year old book, 300 years or so is very recent by their standards.

[@budd2nd]

Researchers have already witnessed code being created. But geneticists just call these new code formations, mutations. I'm surprised you haven't heard of genetic mutations before. But they shuffle, reassemble and produce new genetic code.

[@johnnybhoy4278]

Have you ever met an honest Christian apologist? Me neither.

[@Merrick]

that's a contradiction in terms

[@aldebaran4154]

Poor Dell, getting educated is a crime to him because trying to brain wash doesn't work unless you keep people ignorant.

[@DepartmentOfResults]

5:20 Paradigm doesn't sound that great. That's only 20 cents.

[@markhackett2302]

There are many bible paradigms that we have dropped through the ages. For example the literal word of Genesis is that there was a sea and god made the earth grow out of it, but the paradigm of "there was a sea at first" has dropped. There was a paradigm of the earth living under a dome, but AIG dropped that paradigm ages ago. There was a paradigm of all creatures being created as they currently are in a flurry of creation, but THAT paradigm is no longer. And even early christianity had paradigms of Jesus being entirely human, being possessed by a spirit who left before JC ended on a cross, being made divine only after that resurrection, and all of them are dropped by pretty much all of the christians there in that series, for JC being always and entirely 100% god. And so on, and so forth. If paradigms changing, if paradigms are by definition not to be questioned when in place, and having paradigms is proof of falsity, then creationism and the bible entire is proven false.