Is Evolution a FACT or a FARCE? | Reacteria

[@backin80s]

The biggest pet peeve of mine is these creationist "explaining" evolution like its happening to the same individual (or in one generation) and not a population over many generations.

[@knightsolaire6716]

But that is correct. There is one dude, John Evolution, an amorphous, constantly changing being who hands out new traits to others to change them from cats to dogs.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Bigotry is growing, Conservatives lash-out right now.

[@colinsixhitter3303]

My biggest peeve with creationists is why they feel they need to lie for Jesus. They tell us their wrong version of evolution and then call their misunderstanding crazy. It is and it is pretty obvious they know they are lying.

[@tarmairon431]

@@colinsixhitter3303 Some "the end justifies the means" BS I assume.

[@Rudol_Zeppili]

@@knightsolaire6716 hand it over… that thing, your dark evolution… for my lady’s painting

[@juliana8374]

hey forrest! i just got back from a christian summer camp i was forced to go to and they played for us lots of anti-evolution documentaries and such. one of the ones that stood out to me was "unlocking the mystery of life" and i was hoping you could go through some of its key points and arguments. i noticed plenty of questions they answered incorrectly but because i don't have the knowledge you do some of the other questions left me wondering what your answer would be. i love your videos, i'd love to see this in one soon!

[@spooder1568]

I also just got back from a Christian camp a few days ago. The experience was way different though.

[@davidwise1302]

Back in the late 90's, I got a cold email from someone who had just returned from Christian summer camp with an astronomy question: "As any good scientist will tell you, the Sun burns half of its mass every year. If you multiply the Sun's mass by millions (even though science says it is in the billions) the Sun will be so incredibly huge it will stretch out past Pluto. And if you say that the planets would stay close to the Sun as it shrank, then why don't the planets still move closer?" Completely and utterly false, though I can see the tidbits of facts that got so grossly distorted (eg, fusion occurs in the sun's core, which contains half of the sun's mass). I went through that claim with him in excruciating detail as an exercise in verifying a claim. He told me his source was a camp counselor who told him that. Therefore, he will never see that guy again and cannot correct that idiot's misinformation.

[@kartashuvit4971]

Christian summer camp AKA planned indoctrination

[@Anonymous-md2qp]

Being sent to those camps is a form of abuse. Your parents/guardians don’t have your healthy development in mind. Indoctrination is the goal. Be careful.

[@simplylethul]

@@spooder1568 imagine trying to debunk evoulution when these people dont understand the basics of science.

[@McDun07]

Don’t ask “whether” ask “how”. Wow. Came here to watch you dunk on a creationist and came away with my privilege punctured and my worldview tweaked. Thank you, Forrest.

[@AndrewCollington]

Likewise!

[@CatacombD]

I actually disagree with that particular message entirely. If someone asked me "whether" I can do something or not, I take it as a genuine question regarding my capabilities. If someone asked me, "how," I can do something, it often comes off as incredulous and skeptical of my capabilities. Also, if I actually cannot do what's being asked, "whether," leads to a very simple and easy response. "No, I can't do that." If a person asks me "how," I can do something I can't do, then I have to awkwardly clarify a la, "Er... well, I can't actually program, so we'd have to find someone else to do that instead."

[@scrollreader7355]

@@CatacombD I think you might be misunderstanding the point of the message, and I think you're also looking at it from your particular, individual perspective. I think Forrest put it brilliantly and I think the Foundation's idea is excellent. Discussions about disabled people in society are often so centered on "can you or can you not" and it tends to create this sense that if you have a particular disability (for example, blindness), then you are incapable of doing a particular thing (for example, read) and that's the end of the conversation. But that has two huge problems. Firstly, you're dictating what is or isn't possible for someone else, which is generally bad and even worse when that person is part of a marginalized community, and secondly, you've prevented any exploration of "wait maybe it IS possible." If society had simply said "shucks I guess blind people can't ever read oh well sucks to be them," developments like Braille get thrown out the window and nobody tries to accommodate for the disability. You're just shutting down a person's ability to do something, often needlessly. I think the point of that message is that conversations surrounding disabled people need to be more focused on finding alternative ways to accomplish tasks, rather than simply deciding that because they can't do a task the way that most people do, they can't do it at all. There's more than one way to skin a cat (which is a weird saying if you ask me but that is the saying).

[@CatacombD]

@@scrollreader7355 I get that, but I think that it's a quippy message that doesn't actually work all that well in practice. The point is essentially, "Stop assuming things about disabled people's capabilities, and instead focus on how we can accommodate their needs." That's fine, but it does gloss over the fact that certain disabilities do cause some hard restrictions to what people can do. It shouldn't be seen as rude to ask questions to confirm those limitations, though, provided that you need to know the answers.

[@scrollreader7355]

@@CatacombD There absolutely are limitations to what some people can do, nobody is saying otherwise, but again, it’s about figuring out how best to bypass those limitations. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your stance but you seem to be arguing that we should be allowed to say “are you able to do this task this way,” which I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with. What that slogan/mantra/whatever is saying is to stop asking “are you able to do this, period.” Clarifying limitations is a good thing; that IS asking how, at least a part of it. Seeing those limitations and deciding that because they exist, there is no possible way for that person to accomplish that thing is not a good thing, and that’s what “ask how, not whether” is wanting to shift away from.

[@haroldramislives]

This guy loves a good acronym. I have a good one for him. Talking Without Actually Thinking

[@BenjaminEaster-b8b]

How about SANG; Sining Away Natural Evidence? This adequately portrays many evolution naysayers/young earth creationist in my judgement.

[@schloany4479]

@@BenjaminEaster-b8b Religion: Constructing Unfalsifiable Notions Tyrannically

[@EdwardHowton]

I've never gone to church, myself, especially not in the nightmarish Southern 'Merkan churches you hear horror stories about, but I imagine douchenozzles like Hank here present themselves like this because it's just how their tiny-ass inbred small town church does things. Dramatic pauses like that are a brain hack. There are ways to manipulate someone's attention when you're talking to them, and pausing at weird places is one of them I discovered I was using decades back, so I recognize it. But far less sophisticated is the Look(tm) thing he does with his Dramatic Pauses(tm). An audience that worships at his altar wouldn't know how anything works or be able to understand how he's speaking directly out of his rectal cavity all the time, so giving them that Look(tm) is a way for him to signify to his audience that what he said was supposed to be SUPER brilliant. It's like that thing in elevators. If you go into an elevator and stare directly at the back wall, people will sometimes walk in, see you do it, get confused, and do the same thing. Especially if you bring some friends with you. Mindless compliance; "Everybody else seems to be doing things this way, so I guess I'm the one who's wrong for thinking it's silly!". That's legitimately why a lot of people go to church; they think it's Just What People Do and nobody told them they had the option to _not_ do it. I didn't go to church, but the way I grew up, I would've told people I was a christian. It didn't matter that I thought God sounded silly even before I expected presents from Santa Claus, it didn't matter that I thought everybody was just pretending this God thing was real, it didn't matter I thought nobody *_actually_* believed that nonsense, I rationalized it as just some social ritual or tradition people did out of habit. And this before I was in _kindergarten..._ but I only realized I wasn't a christian when a youth pastor came to our church and explained there were multiple religions in the world. All this to say, the _reason_ he's a talking-without-actually-thinking-waffle is because he's manipulating his audience into respecting his authority by sheer force of brainless habit. He's a performer in a really shitty play, his audience only know the one play, and they know when to clap. Deviation shall not be accepted, the beatings will continue until morale improves.

[@ertymexx]

Perfection man! 😀

[@EricWBurton]

Well said, Egon!

[@mazingdaddid]

"Are we using the same definition of enlightenment? Are we using the same definition of Scientific? Are you high?" -Forrest Valkai, 2022 Forrest, buddy, I adore you.

[@ThisIsATireFire]

I am high as a kite and the creationist still doesn't make sense. I'm not sure where he's getting his word definitions but it's absolutely not Oxford's English etymological that's on my shelf.

[@artydino4914]

It’s not going to make sense, cause you are not even talking about evolution correctly. That is why he doesn’t think it makes sense. He is making assertions about something he even knows the definition is, much less how it works.

[@brianray2614]

High on his own flatulence

[@madamsloth]

34:56

[@Aaron-mj9ie]

the thing that made me realize evolution was real was a teacher pointing out that it's essentially genes playing "Telephone" over millions and millions of years.

[@SomeOnlinePerson]

That is such an amazing way to put it. Jeez, I remember my dad trying to push that "there's only micro-evolution, as in adapting to a different environment, no macro-evolution into a different species." And it left me there just thinking "what do you think happens when those little adaptations stack up over **billions** of years??"

[@OmniphonProductions]

Very cool analogy! As complex as the "inner workings" of genetic mutation are, that's a really great way to describe it. Related Note: Even _if_ some Bible stories are _based on_ actual events, those stories existed _only_ as oral tradition for _generations_ before being written down. Even the earliest New Testament manuscript wasn't written until the mid-2nd century. As such, it defies logic to believe that _any_ of those stories still reflect the reality of the events that inspired them.

[@helenamcginty4920]

@@OmniphonProductions and a lot of the bible stories were variations of earlier Babylonian and Sumerian stories. Eg the flood. Having seen films from floods in Pakistan a few years ago where as far as the eye could see was water with odd groups in boats trying to escape I realised that the descriptions were true but local. Coming from a small country, N W England, I never could envisage my world being covered with water. There were hills and mountains visible from the flat area where I lived.

[@OmniphonProductions]

@@helenamcginty4920 PRECISELY!!! Geologists and Archaeologists are, at this point, pretty confident about the flood that _inspired_ the story of Noah...a story that closely resembles one in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was written about 1,500 years before Noah's alleged existence. _That_ flood (in and around the ancient city of Shuruppak) _would have_ covered everything in water, except maybe for tree tops, for as far as the eye could see. To anyone who survived it, it would have looked like the whole world was flooded. I suspect that _many_ if not _most_ mythological stories are _based_ in some real event(s). The difference between Science and Religion is that the former follows evidence _to_ a conclusion, while religion _starts_ with the conclusion...often rooted in generations-old hearsay...and _then_ seeks evidence to confirm the preconception (while willfully ignoring all the evidence that flatly disproves it).

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@helenamcginty4920 Even the Creation Story is a pretty faithful copy of "enuma Elish", a sumerian Epos about the seven Ages of Creation... the relevant differences go back to the already existing differences in the respective Pantheon...

[@brynnd5523]

This level of frustration Forrest has hits me at my very core. I’m only in my second year of undergrad for microbiology, but last semester, I watched someone who threw away 30 years of “being a scientist” (researching polymers) tell two Christians I befriended that there’s no such thing as transitional fossils/creatures because there’s no such thing as new genetic information (told me mutations are just recycled information no matter what) and that the flood from Noah’s arc happened because all of the water drained through the Grand Canyon. I’ve had yet to listen to/talk to any Christian that doesn’t make me want to scream.

[@themplar]

christianity and creationism are always defended with dishonesty. necessarily

[@Callimo]

Goddamn, I wonder who waved a check with a healthy set of zeros after a number under their nose?

[@brynnd5523]

@@Callimo he said he got his “evidence” from the ICR.. which is the Institution for Creation Research. Use your imagination how bad it is.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Wait what!?! does he think *all* of the water of the flood went through the grand canyon and *no where else?* and if so, would that be a form of American exceptionalism?

[@EmpressLizard81]

So... water covered every inch of everywhere, and it drained through one particular not-very-deep channel which was also completely under water to a place that was still completely flooded and then traveled back out to every other part of the globe... could you get this guy to draw up a cartoon of this happening? 🤔

[@brennasnyder]

once i got to talking about evolution with my dad and whether or not he believed in it and he actually admitted that he found the idea of creationism to be much more comforting because (paraphrasing here) "the idea of everything being one big accident is terrifying" tbh i gotta give props to pops for being able to admit that 🤷‍♀️ love the videos forrest! keep on keepin on

[@raptorcrasherinc.9823]

Yeah. That is one way to look at it. I see it more as the perfect scenario coming together to create us. But that is beside the point, and you are welcome to disagree with what I say. I think people find creationism comforting because it benefits them. If Christianity is true then you were created specifically by an all-powerful, all-loving god that created ways for you to have eternal happiness. Of course people want this. This example used God, but most religions have some form of heaven, or eternal happiness. But that does not make it true, you have to consider the evidence. Like Bill Nye once said, "We would just need one piece of evidence." Wanting something to be true does not make it true. The explanation that supports you the most is not automatically true.

[@heszedjim9699]

Bob ross begs to differ

[@brennasnyder]

@@raptorcrasherinc.9823 oh i def dont disagree with you that that is why most people find creationism comforting, but for my dad its more of a 'if this was all a big accident, then whats the purpose of it all?' kinda deal

[@phillyphakename1255]

@@brennasnyder I find the framing on naturalistic humanity as an "accident" to be incredibly objectionable. The earth didn't have a Chernobyl meltdown and out popped Humans, neither were the apes just walking around one day, one of them tripped on a log in the forest and out popped Humans, no, we are the result of a series of natural processes. When you look deeper, you realize that Humans aren't fundamentally special. We aren't from the apes, we ARE apes. The earth isn't suited perfectly to humans, we are perfectly suited to the earth. As for questions of meaning, I struggle with that myself. How can We be significant when there are a literal hundred trillion stars out there? The result I have come to is that we are significant to ourselves. I am significant to my family and friends, maybe my work or school, but in a country of 300 million, a world of 7 billion? I am just a speck of dust. My significance is local. It isn't an accident that I am a member of my family, it was a niche that existed that someone needed to fill, and I drew straws to be with them. Similarly, Humanity was just fulfilling a role that had an open slot. Someone had to do it, so let's embrace the role.

[@shantheman9922]

@@raptorcrasherinc.9823 I do disagree with that in a way. I may be misunderstanding your meaning, but how I see it, the universe could've just existed without us, or with infinite different versions of us. The universe just happened to make us, but creationists see it as special because it includes them and their ego. If the universe were different, it wouldn't have made us how we are. We would've adapted to the different environment, or not existed at all. The movie Everything, Everywhere, All at Once shows this concept pretty well.

[@warcam2592]

"I would rather not be alive than live on someone elses orders" is such a raw line

[@thewaterguy5741]

“Are we using the same definition of enlightenment? Are we using the same definition of scientific? Are you high?” One of my new favorite quotes

[@Phreemunny]

Also: Carl Sagan wasn’t the “most popular evolutionist;” he was a cosmologist and public science educator

[@godloves9163]

What’s your point? This is a University professor that taught evolution for years and knows it inside out as he was a biologist/zoologist: kzbin.info/aero/PLdbXyyVfVp-55KmIH5gQhYVUZ9xE5sXeA

[@heteroclitus]

@@godloves9163 Evolutionist is a meaningless term outside creationist circles. Veith did believe in evolution at one time, but like many converts he chooses to discard or misrepresent facts that clash with dogma. I watched him trying to "explain" the big bang theory and it was terrible.

[@MultiCappie]

Calling someone who understands the limits and extents of scientific knowledge an "evolutionist" I'm sure is just done to annoy, but it's just like me calling them "Christaceans".

[@godloves9163]

@@heteroclitus lol nice try strawman. You people play with definitions and twist words all the time just to be superior and claim you’re intelligent when it does the opposite. ev·o·lu·tion·ist /ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/ noun noun: evolutionist; plural noun: evolutionists 👉a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection. I guess you’re not a person who believes in evolution…

[@heteroclitus]

@@godloves9163 There it is, the "you people" argument from projection. You're coming across as way too needy, bud.

[@chuckp6667]

It's difficult for me to watch debunking videos because of how obnoxious and condescending these anti science dummies are but I also understand how important it is to debunk them. I greatly appreciate the amount of time and effort it takes to learn and actually understand how things actually work. Thank you very much for taking the time and putting in the effort.

[@meghanworkman6449]

I used to be an evangelical Christian. Thanks to channels like Forrest's, I was able to learn more about actual science (not what evangelicals say science is) and critical thinking, and claw my way out of faith back to logic and evidence. I'm ashamed to admit I used to listen to The Bible Answer Man and eat it up. Now it enrages me to see him sitting there in front of a backdrop with the word "integrity" on it while spewing outright lies. I'll be forever grateful to educators like Forrest who put in the tedious, hard work to educate people on reality so they can leave fairy tales behind.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

You shouldn't be ashamed at all, you should be proud of your courage and honesty. What makes me sad is how unnecessary it all is. Perhaps the worst creationist lie is that evolution theory, Big Bang, abiogenesis etc. are for atheists only. Creationist propagandists always neglect prominent and highly respected christian scientists like Georges Lemaître, Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. The Dutch orthodox protestant Jan Lever was a fine evolutionary biologist too. Unfortunately his campaign to explain evolution theory to his cobelievers hadn't much success.

[@meghanworkman6449]

@@marknieuweboer8099 thank you!

[@shanewilson7994]

welcome to reality.

[@seekingtruthgaming8887]

Well science and Christian ideas while yes, taught by most evangelical people can be way off, the vast majority of Christian belief within academia certainly believes all things Forrest mentions here. Dr Francis Collins teaches all evolution while also being a Christian, there is also people like William Lane Craig, and all the guys at BioLogos, Alvin plantinga etc. Christian belief and Science are not in conflict at all. Big Bang, evolution, etc are very Christian beliefs

[@jasoncraig2281]

Now I gotta look this guy up.

[@pollywatson8099]

I cannot express how much I appreciate every time in one of these videos where you go "this is ableist as hell. have a link."

[@d_camara]

The language most people use is ableist as hell, and most people either are ignorant or know well everything that is ableist but don't want to stop using those because they're scared of change; i just can't watch anything not by someone that rants about how stuff is ableist when it is, and not find something ableist in it every 15 seconds, it's just disgusting how common it is, it's just deeply imprinted in the language

[@jennoscura2381]

Hell yes! I am disabled and really appreciate an abled ally.

[@jennoscura2381]

@@d_camara sadly there is plenty of ableism in our language. But something that annoys me is when people over correct. I am a wheelchair user and it's perfectly fine to ask me if I want to go for a walk.

[@Cashcorn]

I remember being in 9th grade biology class and being told what mutations were. Before we even got into evolution I immediately understood it. I don’t get how grown adults don’t understand evolution.

[@Cashcorn]

@@beemixsy this is true

[@ingridschmid1709]

@@beemixsy And their cash cow too, the probability that a reasonably cogent man could spew such a concentrated flow of thoroughly debunked BS and actually believe any of it is far less probable than evolution by quite a few orders of magnitude .

[@tituslivius2084]

And women

[@Cashcorn]

@@tituslivius2084 true

[@abed4310]

You don't get how grown adults don't understand evolution? I assume you very well believe you have got it down pat. You could ask your biology teacher to show you any beneficial mutation that could account for all the variations we observe in living organisms. There are billions of human beings alive today and many billions that have existed. Where is the mutation occurring within the human population that would mean that the next offspring and the next start resembling something that is not human?

[@ShyyGaladriel]

I got so much less depressed when I realized I didn’t have a purpose.

[@denjidenji9162]

Same! It's so much more freeing realizing that there's no big cosmis reason why I was put on Earth, I was just born and my life is mine to decide what to do with

[@advisingassable]

Exactly, once one realises that they have no destiny, they are truly free to choose their own

[@sarahnaomikeese8223]

It’s a lot harder to feel like a failure when the expectation isn’t perfection.

[@nuynobi]

​​@@sarahnaomikeese8223 You must not have an over-achieving older sibling against whom you've been compared your whole life. (Just kidding, but not really. 😞) I was born into an atheist family so I have never believed in a god or a divine purpose or anything like that. And I gotta say, I actually find the lack of purpose depressing. Personally, I find it hard to get out of bed in the morning when I know that I'm an infinitesimally small blip in a near infinite 4(?) dimensional sea of chaos and nothing I do actually matters. So I can totally see why people can be taken in by religious ideas. When the world looks this bleak, talk of God's eternal love and divine plan sound mighty appealing. The problem is, I already know better, so I'm stuck wrestling with my nihilism and trying to find a reason not to curl up in a ball and die. "Atheism leads to nihilism so my religion is true" is a common argument used by creationists. Putting aside the obvious logical flaw, I actually agree with their premise. More commonly, atheists will say something similar to what Forrest articulated in this video. I wish I could partake in their positivity and optimism. Alas, while I find it logically compelling, I don't find it emotionally satisfying. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go book another session with my counselor. 😂🥹😭🤮💀

[@ritchie6162]

It was the exact opposite of what I was taught would happen to me. It was unbelievably liberating.

[@sandrokostic6008]

I know debunking people like this guy is such a waste of your time, but we need you to do more of it in this times. More Reacteria, please. 😊 Thank you.

[@cheezyxyz149]

I don’t think he thinks it’s a waste of time because he uses it to educate us. I have learned a lot from his videos and wish he did more

[@sandrokostic6008]

@@cheezyxyz149 true.

[@RabblesTheBinx]

Fighting misinformation is _never_ a waste of time. It can _feel_ like it, at times, but it is _always_ worthwhile.

[@CruiserDynasty]

if he dident have a good guy complex then id like him to. People with the complex will tend to lose all forms of commonsense just to feel like a good person, like when he trys to use good and evil as proof in some of his videos such as this one when he talked about meaning which to me was just based on his fantasy and not science.

[@jezus5519]

To be honest: video's like this helped me tremendously in my deconstruction from christian to atheist and they still do! Maybe you won't convince this one particular man of his fallacies but there are also dozens of christians (like me) watching for whom these videos are very helpful for seeing that creationist arguments are most of the time very silly.

[@jamesleigh2844]

It's funny, as a teacher in the UK, I have never faced opposition when teaching evolution. Yet recently a student I tutor asked me if I thought dinosaurs were real... really threw me for a loop.

[@fordprefect5304]

You don't have 60 million evangelicals living in UK either.

[@jamesleigh2844]

@@fordprefect5304 that is true, most religious people can reconcile their scripture with science here.

[@abrandpluckedoutofthefire8043]

Did u teach students Darwin evolution theory is the fact?

[@byrnemeister2008]

@@abrandpluckedoutofthefire8043 off course he did.

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@abrandpluckedoutofthefire8043 scientific theories are based on facts and explain facts, scientific theories change in light of new information, science is not the same as religion, please educate yourself

[@Soapy-chan_old]

I dream of the day a creationist can reliably define what a kind is.

[@kaliban4758]

@@ponypapa6785 thing is it is upon the person or group of people that uses "kind" to define the word when it deals with biology

[@grantharriman284]

To be fair we don't have absolute definitions of species, so I would settle for an empirical description of how to identify what falls within at least a few kinds, and be able to extrapolate from that.

[@Soapy-chan_old]

@@grantharriman284 The thing is, we don't have to have an absolute definition of species and for anything else. The creationists make the claim that there are kinds and that these mean there is no evolution, so they have to provide an exact and absolute definition. We normal people just accept that we have arbitrary categories that are neither evidence nor counter-evidence for evolution.

[@dracocrusher]

There actually is a list on the Ark Encounter, which Gutsick Gibbon goes over in her video visiting it. Annndddd it's pretty blatantly bullshit that falls apart super hard with just a little scrutiny, because of course it is. That's why they'll never be able to define Kinds. Of course, species are a bit fuzzy because evolution is more of a gradient than anything else, but you have to make some massive leaps in logic to justify that bats and birds are even remotely similar from a genetic standpoint.

[@canariopintado9929]

Kind - I know it when I see it

[@mephustowest1876]

My biology teach in high school started the year by saying that she didn't believe in evolution instead she believed in god and creationism. She then told us that she "had to teach us evolution" but that she would spend the same amount of time telling us her beliefs against evolution and for god creating everything. I wish I had these videos to show her back then. Thank you for all of your fun and educational videos.

[@firstpersonwinner7404]

This is always wild to me. I grew up a conservative Evangelical but being schooled in California and Colorado the schools just taught evolution 🧬 and it was parents decision to basically tell their kids they shouldn't believe that afterwards 😅

[@phillyphakename1255]

My 9th grade bio teacher showed us that religion need not be oppositional to science. She enabled me to be a Christian who was going to university for a physics degree and study the big bang etc by following god of the gaps. She accepted that the bible was written by sheep herders 3000 years ago. Much like how our understanding of gravity and kinematics changed over the 400 years since Newton, we can allow our understanding of the world to change as newer and better info becomes available.

[@jessicaphillips8422]

@@phillyphakename1255 well said👏👍

[@cynister7384]

How did that person ever become a biology teacher

[@merrittfallis6544]

@@cynister7384 Exactly what I was wondering. Not only 'how', but 'why'?

[@lukegoldstein]

I came for the science, I gained the tools for better advocacy. This is why this channel is one of my happy places.

[@vinnieg6161]

I came to laugh and maybe learn something on the side

[@jounisuninen]

@@vinnieg6161 Forrest is one big joke 😃

[@ponypapa6785]

I always expect "never stop learning!" to be followed up with "this is a threat!"

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Bigotry is growing, Conservatives lash-out right now.

[@maple22moose44]

doesn’t need to be said, it should already be obvious

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@loturzelrestaurant Okay groomer. Bigot being one of your favorite insults for people you disagree with is hilarious because bigot literally means you don't tolerate other opinions. That's you. Conservatives are 100000x more tolerant than the Nazis on the left. Ever heard of cancel culture, CRT, identity politics, mass censorship, etc? That's you. That's the results of bigotry.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@James Henry Smith "Evolutionists" isnt a Thing. Theres just people who know its objectively proven that Evolution is a vibrant-field-of-study with millions of contributors all over the world and we know enough about it to write Librarys-full-of-it and those that dont.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@James Henry Smith You clearly have no clue about what your saying. You are the kind of Person who couldnt STAND watching FOrrest Valkai and Aron Ra both cover 'John and Jane'. Go: I dare you. I bet money, even.

[@tripleparakeetshoes4613]

Fascinating to me - someone who passed biology with a C - that I could even say "that's not punctuated equilibrium theory," with complete certainty. I've never heard creationists try to dispute it. Most of them agree that it exists because that's directly observable.

[@rickkwitkoski1976]

@Triple Parakeetshoes All SORTS of creatards argue against evolution. Try Ken Ham, Kent Hovid, Eric Hovind, Matt Powell, Ray Comfort and SO MANY MORE MORONS!

[@naruarthur]

some years back a random creationist tried to convince me that science actually described creation and tried to use punctuated equilibrium i have never heard of it so i gave it a look, it was nothing like he said, and the guy in this video messed up even more

[@danacarpender2287]

Hell, I'm a housewife who flunked out of college (too much cutting class and smoking dope), and *I* could say "that's not punctuation equilibrium theory."

[@wendelljenkins3911]

@@naruarthur So you are an atheist?

[@naruarthur]

@@wendelljenkins3911 yeah, but evolution has nothing to do with it at best evolution show the bible can't be taken literally

[@Alessandro-B]

As AronRa is fond of saying, creationists have to lie to defend their position.

[@seanweaver1832]

"My understanding of my origins makes me more compassionate..." Wow. You have so eloquently described how a life of asking questions can lead to a deeper truth. Thank you.

[@azazelsiad3601]

When you understand the struggle of your species you tend to be more compassionate to them as a whole.

[@0ddSavant]

“Can?” [or whether] versus “How?” is an amazing insight. It’s such a simple switch of framing, and it makes such a huge difference. Thank you for that. Have an amusing and completely true story from my childhood: My paternal grandfather was completely blind. As in, “He physically did not have eyes.” [Trauma in early childhood]. He met my grandmother when he was in college and they fell in love. Over time my grandmother’s eyesight started failing. It got to the point she couldn’t recognize her own child’s face at arms length if she wasn’t wearing her glasses. She refused to wear those glasses for vanity reasons, even at home. That’s right, even when the only other person who could possibly be nearby was physically incapable of seeing her, or of forming any sort of negative opinion of her appearance with regards to her glasses, she chose to do without. I still can’t wrap my head around that. He was a good guy. First man on that side of the family to go to college. He played piano [He marked middle C with tape], and one of my earliest memories was him hilariously cheating at cards when we were foolish enough to let him deal [Braille in the corners of the cards, he’d “Help” us hold the cards right while snooping what we were all holding]. His clock would announce the time periodically. I can still hear that clock voice with amazing clarity these many decades later. He passed a couple years ago, and he will be missed. I guess it’s lucky he managed to avoid getting the news of his being completely helpless. It might have really affected him. Or, more likely, he would have beat the everloving piss out of the messenger foolish enough to suggest that he was in any way inferior. He also had a bit of a temper about such things. Cheers!

[@thethirdtime9168]

He sounds like an absolute amazing person, thank you for sharing

[@alexalbuquerquerodriguesal108]

Well, what your grandfather lacked in sight, he more than overcompensated in wits. I couldn't cheat in cards even if my life depended on It and the fella just made an elaborated plan fool a bunch of people in cards game. Simply amazing.

[@alexalbuquerquerodriguesal108]

@James Henry Smith I beg the differ.

[@thethirdtime9168]

@James Henry Smith I'd like to see proof if you have any

[@majkus]

Although the mechanisms are very different, human languages provide a good metaphor ("model" may be too strong a word) for the changes in species found in nature. Latin did not just become Italian overnight; there were many Latin-based local dialects that appeared in Italy over a period of centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, and there was not some single moment in which these dialects became "Italian" (and indeed, some of these dialects continued into the twentieth century). There was not some day on which Brits decided to speak the language of Chaucer instead of the language of the Beowulf poet. But, like 'punctuated equilibrium', the English language changed rapidly in a short time (due to important events like the Norman invasion) but has changed very little (perhaps about ten percent of usages) since Shakespeare's time. But perhaps Old English and Modern English are the same 'kind'; nevertheless, it is evident from linguistic evidence (including the 'DNA' of related sounds) that a proto-Indo-European language was ancestral to German, French, English, and Spanish, and only a stubborn fool would say that these languages emerged fully-formed after the Tower of Babel. While the analogy is inexact, it is hard to understand how the creationists can continue to argue from incredulity ("a dog doesn't give birth to a cat") when changes in such a comparatively short time demonstrably lead to such amazing linguistic diversity as we see.

[@535phobos]

Thats actually a really good metaphor. I am gonna use that to explain transition between species.

[@maxdanielj]

A good example of why "kind" is such a nonsense thing using language would be Japanese Kanji, it looks like Chinese but it doesn't mean the same things as the identical characters in Chinese. It looks like the same "kind" but the meanings are different.

[@kinglyzard]

@@maxdanielj When I hear creationists talk about their "kinds", I substitute the word "kind" with the word "clade". "Clade" is a sliding scale word which represents any organism and all its descendants. Nothing can switch "kind" or "clade". It is what its ancestors were.

[@AndrewWilson-fb8ge]

yes in fact in Roman Latin, you can find traces of languages from around the Mediterranean like Greek and Etruscan(the people who were in Italy before the 'Romans' proper)

[@jennoscura2381]

I am a native speaker of Mexican Spanish. Spanish fascinates me because not only is it based on Latin but borrows from Arabic thanks to the Moors invading the Iberian peninsula. And Mexican Spanish borrows from English due to the proximity to the US. For example. In Spain the world for rifle is fusil. In Mexico the most common term is rifle (ree-fleh). It's just the English word pronounced in Spanish.

[@VerrosGildran]

"When you put your god on my dissection table, then we'll talk" has got to be the most metal thing I've heard all week.

[@BenjaminEaster-b8b]

I have been informed by a former Christian turned skeptical/atheistic KZbinr who labels himself with the appellative Paulogia. In one of his interviews, he introduced me to an impeccable analogy in relation to the dependableness of evidence: "Would I take the evidence to be compelling if i was not convinced beforehand?" This is a paraphrased version of his statement, but you, in all likelihood, find this point to be totally cogent. He articulately and scrupulously encapsulates the most paramount argumentations from a skeptical perspective of Scripture, such as a) the fact that the gospels are all anonymously segmented by unknown authors and, subsequently, Paul of Tarsus is the single human in history to directly and distinguishably record himself as having seen a risen Jesus; he did not allegedly see Jesus' until a handful of years after his death. b) There are some blantly contradictions that exist in the biblically canonical gospels. Take a gander at Mark 16:6-15. You'll notice that the gospel has two endings.

[@nineofnine]

Ummmm yep very 'metalic' indeed 😅

[@BenjaminEaster-b8b]

@nineofnine Thank you tremendously for hypothetically taking time out of your day to digest my content.

[@HangrySaturn]

34:38

[@joshuas193]

"A cat doesnt evolve into a dog or vice-versa." Does this man actually think that anyone, anywhere, actually thinks this?

[@YellowFreesias]

The only thing my cats could "evolve" into is fatter, lazier cats 😆

[@richtraube2241]

He does.

[@michaelgoldstein8516]

Yes. He does. He actually thinks this is what evolution says. Just like he probably believes that gay marriage will lead to people marrying lamps and horses. This man has such a loony toons view of the world, it is mind boggling.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@@YellowFreesias Forrest needs to React to the "Schools has LOTS of Issues"-Video-Essay that Cody Johnston Just made.

[@hopelessnerd6677]

Most people think that cats and dogs are somehow totally different in every way and couldn't possibly be related. All mammals are more similar to each other than they are different. It's the old biblical misconception of "kinds" based on superficial appearance, not core similarities.

[@JuggerNATE93]

Some years ago my dad gave me his copy of Dinosaurs in a Haystack, which is a collection of essays by Stephen Jay Gould. It was in that book i learned about punctuated equilibrium. I do not have a college degree. I do not work in the sciences. I have read literally ONE essay about this idea, and I confidently understand it better than him. It doesn't take much effort to learn about this stuff!

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

But it takes willingness!

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

The willingness to remain comfortably ignorant, will always be an inferior method than even a modicum of desire to crawl into the light of understanding.

[@Foolish188]

Gould way over stated his case. But it was a rational interpretation of the fossil evidence, he hated that Creationists used misinterpreting his arguments against the Theory of Evolution.

[@BluePhoenix_]

Gould, the creationists favorite quotemine... Mine...

[@StoneDeceiver]

yo're a lyer everyone no god word is true

[@adamh6114]

“That is neither an answer, nor is it a complete sentence.” 😂 Love it!

[@Aurelyn]

I played a drinking game where everytime a creationist says kind instead of species. I died from alcohol poisoning but its ok I rose from the dead just like Jesus.

[@shanewilson7994]

Careful posting that, Neil Breen may steal that idea for his next "movie"

[@ShabbaDabb]

Spit-take

[@kamilpakatheinfluence]

Humans don't have enough kidneys for such game.

[@marcstrang6018]

I suffocated from laughing at this and rose the same way!

[@emanuelcr777]

Wow! That was an absolute destruction! Definition of farce: a light dramatic composition marked by broadly satirical comedy and improbable plot. It's hilarious and ironic that he calls evolution a farce without even understanding the basics but believes in a story with the most improbable plot. Reacteria has easily become my favorite series. Keep them coming!

[@robinsonwinnie5330]

If I had a nickel for every time a biblical creationist used eyes to attack evolution, I'd have way more than two nickels.

[@Jlaaag]

but... humans are complicated! doesn't that mean it's impossible to happen naturally? /s

[@iantaakalla8180]

If you collect nickels for every creationist that uses eyes to attack evolution, you would have a very comfortable life as far as finances go

[@0815UserII]

Can we put up an eye jar next to their swear jar and distribute that to good charities every year? It would do a lot more good for the world than their collective brain capacity does.

[@grabka1984]

@James Henry Smith except that every analysis of the evidence throughout history has discredited the creation story, and the only source for creationism is a book written in the bronze age. Thanks for trying though 👍

[@adamboyen4727]

@James Henry Smith based on what evidence?

[@78dentedhead]

Your comment about how horrible it would be to be created with a purpose... it just hit me. I had never considered it that way, and I've been an atheist all my life. Now the concept does indeed horrify me. Awesome vid, as usual 👍

[@yami-131]

it is actually a Fascinating topic in terms of the Risk and Morality involved in creating a True Artificial Intelligence. by Design we want to impose and exert a measure of Will and purpose on the machines we create, as our intent for creating those machines is in most cases to help us, their "Creators". however if we do create an intelligence capable of self recognition and thought what would that mean for this machine? does this then lead to a kind of Existential Identity Crisis in those machines? it is an Idea that is very interestingly brought up a lot in Science Fiction many times. If you are a Gamer, I think one of the more interesting Games that somewhat ponders this question is the original mass effect Trilogy. in fact the entire plot more or less revolves around this question, especially with regards to the Geth and the Reapers. the original point of conflict in the current cycle between the Geth and the Quarians stems in essence from one moment when one of the Geth units asks a simple question from one of it's creators: "does this Unit have a soul?" the Geth are not a completely manifested AI at the beginning of the story and they see themselves as a collective rather than individuals. at the same time through sharing everything they have gained a greater capacity of Thought which makes their entire collective seem as a unit with a sense of self. the Geth search throughout the story for their Identity and purpose until they finally reach individualism. Meanwhile the Reapers are similar but they are both collectives and individuals at the very beginning of the story. have come to a decision that they are above this chaotic existence and that they must become the supreme exertion of order, necessary to existence, akin to Deities. as Sovereign puts it in it's conversation with Shepard: "My kind Transcends your very understanding. we are each a Nation, Independent, free of all weakness" "We are eternal, the pinnacle of existence and evolution" "we impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. you exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it" there is another moment in the games which is very interesting to ponder as well. in Mass Effect 3 there is a Dialogue between Shepard and Javic, regarding AI and specifically the Geth: Javic "Organics do not know how we were created. some say by chance, some say by miracle; it is a mystery. but synthetics..." Shepard "know we created them." Javic "and they know we are flawed." Shepaerd "Why do you say that?" Javic "They are immortal; we are not. they see time as an illusion; we are trapped by it's limitations. Above all, Machines know the reason they were created." Shepard "EDI might disagree with that, but I see your point." Javic "they serve a purpose, while we search aimlessly for ours. in their eyes, organics have no Reason to exist. do not trust them commander" Shepard "I can't believe there isn't some way for us to coexist. we made them" Javic "and then gave them the power to surpass you. there is Room for only one order of consciousness in the Galaxy. The perfection of the Machines, or the Chaos of the Organics" At the same Time there is another plotline involving EDI (which Shepard references in the conversation mentioned above) where she is a fully manifested AI and is struggling to understand her purpose as she has long evolved further than the original purpose she was built for before gaining this self aware consciousness and she is trying to create her own Identity and search for her purpose.

[@gwenturo9550]

I think if we were to make a true artificial intelligence, it would probably realize that it's not bound by the same limitations as humans are, and, in my opinion, maybe use that realization to adopt a self-induced responsibility to aid us, rather than having a purpose to aid us, if that makes any sense. Very interesting stuff! I can't wait to see where it goes!

[@raysalmon6566]

well you are created with a purpose

[@gwenturo9550]

@@raysalmon6566 We make our own purpose. And it's always subject to change.

[@raysalmon6566]

@@gwenturo9550 you will still face judgment and give an account i

[@fazergazer]

Hi! Helen Keller here. I can personally dispute the creationist claim that I am unable to contribute to society because I was blind. I was also deaf. A kind person helped me overcome my disability and I was able to communicate my thoughts and share them in books and other writings. Thank you Forrest. Like you I tried to improve the human condition by advocating for rationality and teaching. You are a thoughtful and helpful young man. We need more people such as you. ❤

[@ItsArtyTheFox]

I was raised in the church and only became an atheist a few months ago (Partially thanks to you!) Your comment about "X = 0 doesn't mean Y = 1" just hit me different >.> It's something I wish I would have been told when I was in grade school/high school because it's just enough to be simple but also thought provoking.

[@stultusvenator3233]

Welcome to a bright new world, it can be difficult and uncomfortable I hear but learning the facts and truths is so exciting and awe inspiring. Enjoy.

[@rogertheshrubber2551]

As another atheist, I just want to add that just because you're now an atheist, doesn't mean you're critical thinking is now good. When I first became an atheist, I still believed all sorts of crazy things without evidence and had to shed them, one by one, over years. I had only changed my mind on a single thing. To this day, decades later, I still come across long held beliefs of mine that are flat wrong. You just have to be willing to admit being wrong and to continue to examine why you believe things. It's also ok to abandon a believe based on lack of evidence and then go back to it in the face of then acquiring that evidence. Changing your mind is not a weakness.

[@ItsArtyTheFox]

@@rogertheshrubber2551 Yeah, I arrived at this because a further pursuit of knowledge and everything I was being taught by the church wasn't lining up. I'm aware of the fact that I'll likely have other things I need to change my opinion on. I'm cautiously proceeding and simply trying to move forward with an inquisitive mind. Being aware of this as I am, I very very rarely will say aloud what I think and would rather research a topic before making decisions :) All I can do is question everything and try my best

[@stultusvenator3233]

@@rogertheshrubber2551 I think there are 2 different issues here, first yes critical thinking & intellectual honesty have in fact improved. What you possibly mean is your IQ did not go up, you were not stupid or dumb previously just the ideas and mythology one held to. Particularly I think understanding what IS Evidence & what is just unfounded claims, unsupported assertions and wish thinking along with learning to watch out for biases and fallacies.

[@Applemangh]

Yes, so many of these creationists think that if they can just disprove evolution that doing so will automatically prove their entire worldview by default. It's so silly. It's like saying "this tiny gap in the fossil record proves that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior!"

[@grantharriman284]

Your reaction "This is the guy?" basically covers how I feel every time I go down a young earth/creationist/flat earth/conspiracy theory rabbit hole and find an actual source.

[@disabledchatzen5276]

Then you're not being intellectually honest with yourself. Many ignorant and demonstrably wrong people believing in something does nothing to discredit the validity of the thing. The creationist pointed out here is clearly an idiot who is misrepresenting arguments for personal gain. That, in and of itself, does nothing to address the argument itself. It's shooting the messenger. There are many historical models that could very well account for radiometric dating errors consistently producing timescales that are wildly inaccurate if any one of the assumptions built into the dating methods is discovered to be false, and there are many reasons to believe some of them are false, namely the constancy of radionuclide formation and decay throughout the history of the Earth/Universe and our motion through the Milky Way. Or the possibility that the solar system itself evolves, and that the Earth's current orbit around the sun may be a relatively recent configuration. Instead, science tends to assume a peaceful gradualism that is in almost every discipline, eventually upended by cataclysm, and "punctuated equilibrium." This is not to say that I am a young earth creationist. On the contrary, I am opposed to religious explanations, but to refuse to acknowledge the many legitimate concerns and critiques of the current scientific narrative of our past is concerning. Don't pat yourself on the back, you might break your spine. It is very easy to deceive a human being. Whether or not the universe was created seems well within the realm of debate and is hardly settled. The earth could very well be flat. I've seen a few good arguments among the many many bad ones. Again, it is very easy to deceive a human being. And conspiracies are historically proven to have happened. People conspire. They get together and scheme. We know it's happened. It's probably happening now. I know this might break your brain, but conspiracies can be true. Conspiracy is not a synonym for bullshit. That's a CIA jedi mind trick and you have lost the war of words in your own mind. People conspire. Conspiracies can be true. Which ones are or aren't, again, are certainly up for debate, but to condescendingly use the term like a good little CIA trained zombie to intentionally conflate the previous ideas with nonsense is bad form. There is strong evidence of a global flood. I believe all of the oceans to be recent. I believe the earth's core expanded as it cooled as heavier elements sank and lighter elements were displaced, and that the outer shell of the earth fractured, expanded, and cooled. Continental crust thickness averages 30km, and is intrusive granite, while oceanic crust averages 10km thickness and is extrusive basalt in composition. The scars running down the mid atlantic ocean ridge, and the cracks running along the ocean floor between the continents, tell a much different story when ignoring the long-time-scales that are incorrectly deduced from false assumptions. Play the same history, but instead of in slow motion over hundreds of millions of years, play it forward in your mind as if it was taking place over a matter of months. Like a warm gooey ball with a frozen crustal exterior, The earth fractured. There was no pangea + large ocean. It was just one solid crust that fractured, the water came from below, as described in many of the ancient flood myths. The newly formed continents separated, expanded, slid around, colliding with the mantle below in the westward sliding, forming the american mountain chains that extend the full length of the west coast of both continents. In a matter of days. Moments. Lava oozed in between the expanding cracks of the earth, solidified, and rain fell into the newly formed ocean basins. It was a terrifying and traumatic event and I believe human beings lived through it. We have documented mythologies surrounding a "long day" event scattered across half the globe on one side, and "long night" mythologies scattered across the other half. All tracing to roughly the same time. It's not entirely unreasonable that many of our ancestors claims are descriptions of what they witnessed in the sky. It all happened. We're living in the equilibrium. Our ancestors witnessed the punctuation. They lived the "!"

[@grantharriman284]

@@disabledchatzen5276 The guy being an idiot is not what discredits the arguments. The evidence did that long before I found the source of the argument, but I still held out hope that there would be some more refined version at the source which is at least less obviously contrary to all available evidence.

[@lunasborednow]

@@disabledchatzen5276 Did you just say the Earth could be flat and you've seen some good arguments?! Did you actually say that? 0.o Oh dear. Yes people conspire, but it's always pretty simple. They get power from it somehow in a pretty direct way. I.E. Tabaco companies find out product is deadly, deceive people to say it isn't so they'll keep buying tabaco, profit. Flat Earth and Evolution is a lie have the Underpants Gnomes problem- there's no step two.

[@Junosensei]

@@disabledchatzen5276 - You're missing information that directly disproves your hypotheses, like how radiometric dating is used accurately today to predict where certain types of fossil fuels, all which depend on very specific aging, can be found, including how deep they are and what layers they expect to find--some error ratios can seem big, like around 100,000 years or so at the most, but those error ratios go back hundreds of millions of years. And such a massive shift in the Earth's crust would have EXTREME piles of evidence found in everything from sediment layering, to the fossil record, to patterns on the sea floor (involving plate tectonics), to the chemical makeup of eroded rock, etc. It's one thing to claim science can be wrong, or that one mistake can spiral into assumptions that affect all proceeding science, but then you have to demonstrate not only how what evidence you found supports your hypothesis, but also how all the evidence that currently supports the contending science is similarly or better suited to your hypothesis. If your hypothesis on flooding is true, then it needs to be just as good as, if not better than, current scientific consensus at predicting where certain layers of sediment were deposited and can now be found. Anyway, I've been in a plane flown across the world. I've seen the curvature of the globe. I've also done lots of stargazing in the US and Japan and I find the different trajectory of star patterns at different parts of the year--only possible with a round Earth--fascinating. How exactly does a flat earth account for the things I've seen with my own eyes?

[@peppermintgal4302]

​​@@disabledchatzen5276 There are a full zero good arguments for the earth being flat. YOU can YOURSELF trivially demonstrate the earth round with a video chat conference and a couple of sticks. Unless you believe the CIA can bend the trajectory of light the whole world over.... There is evidence for floods happening in any one place during some era of the world, but no good evidence for a global flood. In fact, theres a very efficient proof against there having been a global flood: basic fucking thermodynamics. Floods produce heat by friction. Any particularly timely flood would produce so much heat in such a short period of time that everything short of fused quartz would melt. No, the ubiquity of flood myths proves only one thing --- many places are prone to flooding, and people are prone to exaggeration. After all, "it's easy to decieve a human being," yes? Does that not also imply that a global flood might be such a deception? Naturally the precise configuration of the solar system has changed --- comets have nudged planets slight amounts, at the very least --- but any moderate deviation from orbit would produce EXTREME effects we don't see in any geological record of any sort. Actually, we only have reason to believe the earths position in particular is unusually stable --- a large planet farther from orbit tends to absorb incoming bodies that might tweak our orbit, our large moon prevents extreme wobbling, and nearby planets are rather small, meaning the speed at which small perturbations in precise locations are magnified through the system is slower. Reverse engineering the past positions of various stars show none would have passed close enough to meaningfully effect planetary orbits, and judging by the general density of our stellar neighborhood and neighborhoods in the same "lane" of our galaxy, that's no surprise, it's actually extremely unlikely such an event would occur, and judging by present motions, no such event CAN occur for a very long time. How much the solar system has changed over time will be more dependent on how densely packed rogue planets are, but the nearest known one is some 50 lightyears away, last I heard, which is.... woof... quite a ways. I SUPPOSE that data on how many rogue planets are around could be easily faked, given amateur astronomers have no ability to detect those yet, but the solar systems? Amateur astronomers can derive their positions and trajectories, there are many amateur astronomers, and the only ones calling foul are the ones who don't know how to focus their lenses, and mostly, they just claim to see "massive amoebas in space" and shit. Not sure how the inside of the earth would EXPAND as it cooled. Generally, expansion occurs in substances because outgassing or heating. The terrestrial crusts are made of similar material as the moon, implying the reason they are different than the sea crusts is that they are donated by the moon and possibly a second, similar impact, (evidence for which exists in the form of its sunken, ruined remains within the earth itself.) The terrestrial crusts are lighter, so they tend to get pushed up by sea crusts and squeezed, hence the thickness. Your hypothesis, on the other hand, doesnt explain subduction zones. If it were true, we'd predict the earth would be covered by shield volcanoes and super volcanoes, all of which would be extremely active. There'd be few zones of subduction, since the plates would generally be pulling apart, and thus not jostle eachother commonly, unless you assume the speed of plate growth is fast enough that you've explained everything weve seen WITHOUT the need for a "growing earth." The CIA actively spreads conspiracy theories to discredit actual, realistic conspiracy theories. Harder to take the guy sayin the CIA used the finders keepers cult to get intel on Chinese politics if he's standing next to the raving antisemite saying NASA is hiding evidence he's descended from aryan aliens. I think you need to practice a little more intellectual humility. What worth have your theories? What do they *predict?* Explanatory power is trivially produced, and you don't even seem to have a whole lot of *that.* Frankly, those regions of scientific knowledge that are most in question are those we expect --- the boundaries. Cosmological uniformity, for example, whether or not axions exist, or the reason for the wrong prediction of the magnetic moment of the muon, what occurs when spacetime bends so much light can't escape, these are the high hanging fruits of science. You're so hungry for esoteric knowledge, you're busy squabbling over the long picked over low hanging fruits. Why should anyone give you any funding, why should anyone treat you with any serious consideration? Because you know the CIA is up to no good? Anyone can tell you that.

[@loganstrong5426]

When you got into the whole Existentialism during his "C" point, I was screaming "YES" at my screen because I too find much comfort that life is without purpose or destiny, and that I may forge my own. But also, I realized that this video more than most, you got really deep. Because he never once references actual scientific facts (unlike, say, John and Jane who at least start with real studies and just need some clarification on the science), the video ended up all about the philosophy drawn from evolution and the philosophy of science as a whole. So we got to see a little more of your philosophy, personal views, and values. Which I liked, it's a different discussion than we normally have.

[@MafAard]

unrelated to the subject, after 30 minutes you talk about what you learned from the federation of the blind. I love what you say about the difference between asking if someone can do it and how they do it. As a wheelchair user it annoys me a lot that the lay assume for me that I need help and that I can choose to accept the help or refuse it. It feels a lot better when someone asks if I am managing (when I am struggling) I can confirm and they go. saying yes feels better than saying no PS. you have to be aware this happens every time we go in public, hearing it every time makes it extra annoying, it would not bother me if it happened once per year

[@shanewilson7994]

I was at a cosplay convention earlier this year, and there was a guy like that who just insisted on helping a woman go down the hallway in her wheelchair, looked like it freaked her out when he just grabbed it and started pushing. Fortunately he didn't make it far before someone stopped him. Then he got into an argument because "he was just trying to be nice" and didn't seem to wrap his head around why "ask first" was a good idea.

[@capital_L283]

Man I wish I was half as confident as this dude as he just is completely wrong in public Edit:The old guy, Forrest is great

[@vinnieg6161]

the dunning kruger effect is interesting to see indeed, the dumber they are, the more confident and sure they seem of their opinions.

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

Isn't it amazing that so much of their argument relies so very heavily on looking around them, and picking out two animals, and using what science has discovered, stating confidently that the one cannot become the other, therefore they could not have descended from something else? I wish I could figure out some way to just punch a hole in their misunderstanding, and change their perspective, to understand that they're starting with the numbers 10 and 11, and insisting that 10 cannot equal 11, therefore no other numbers can exist...

[@TheLedgerson]

"If you were walking down a path and you came across a god, you wouldn't just think that it made itself, right? You would KNOW that there is a god maker that made this god, that's just common sense right?" Great line, nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Good stuff.

[@iwkaoy8758]

A GOD wood ant bee affect Ted buy de laws he create ted. Example- video game character spawn inn two exists, But if a video game character ask what spawn point de developer spawned from,that wood ant make cent bee cause de laws inn hisses world is different than de laws of de world he create ted. God Kent bee internal inn hour universe,but de laws were it's from could beyond hour minds two under stand. That's why humans Kent comprehend a shape that's defined buy three dimensional sides.

[@TheLedgerson]

@@iwkaoy8758 I don't understand. What is a Wood Ant Bee and who is Ted? On a more serious note, bad analogy. Developers have spawn points. Parents. The only concept here that makes no "cent" is God.

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@TheLedgerson It does make cent. If you find a artificial, intelligence, flying row bot indie mid dole of de woods, a Theist wood say diss is complex, so a intelligent mind made it. A atheist wood say, Their row bot,but know sign of a designer,So it made it self. Both Theist and Atheist have faith, but Atheist bee leave their an sir is de default an sir until de other prove a designers. That's like a Theist say yin,Theism is ant a bee leaf,it's a lack of bee leaf in Evolutionism. Theist: some thing intelligent create ted diss row bot. Atheist: where did de designer of de row bot comes from and what create ted it. It does ant matter were it came from, de own Lee ting that matter if de ting create ted it ore Knott. Knott know wing were it came from does ant disprove it exists.

[@mergele1000]

@@iwkaoy8758 you seriously need to turn off your auto-correct it is hurting you more than helping.

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@mergele1000 Auto correct is ant own.

[@keithabonita4295]

"x=0 does not mean y=1." Fucking beautiful quote.

[@spooder1568]

Every time he says “kind” or “Evolutionist” i take physical damage

[@spooder1568]

@James Henry Smith exactly! Also, are you seriously a flat earther?

[@spooder1568]

@James Henry Smith also also, quit saying evolutionists

[@benwood7475]

Lmao “are you high?” Asked in such a serious way. I love you Forrest. Thank you for all you do on here.

[@vinnieg6161]

Pretty sure a group of stoners would have more intelligent discussions than this creationists over here xD

[@JediKalElStarkiller]

This is the only time I've seen someone tackle Hank's creationist talking points. This man was a big influence on me when I was a young earther. I remember I met him in Denver and asked him about Koko the gorilla's ability to communicate through sign language. I was wondering how could an ape communicate feelings and desires when they were "lesser" animals than humans. He told me it was a trick. She wasn't really communicating she was just copying the humans. It didn't sit well with me, but I thought he was a wise Christian he must know what he is talking about. It wasn't until after my deconversion that I looked up what evolutionary biologist said about evolution instead of preachers. I realized that most of the objections young earthers have are easily answered by the basics of evolution. Thank you for helping in continuing my education.

[@h.a.l.3980]

How well Koko could communicate was massively overstated.

[@JediKalElStarkiller]

@@h.a.l.3980 I just thought that to totally dismiss her ability to communicate was just as bad, but in the other direction. I've been meaning to look into Koko and her abilities.

[@JediKalElStarkiller]

@@realNeron I've been meaning to look more into Koko and her abilities. If it wasn't for me dropping my faith I wouldn't have looked into evolution with an open mind. Thanks for the congrats.

[@yoshisaidit7250]

@@JediKalElStarkiller No such thing a "wise christian". To believe in things they cannot prove to be true, is far from wise.

[@Chamelionroses]

There are expressions of emotions if animals in nature but how humans define as intelligence can also compare with humans lacking those comparisons at times. Such as American Psycho movie style as a possible extreme. With the animal communication if only a fish could climb a tree then humans could compare the iq of humans...where iq really isn't the best way to measure intelligence.

[@camillefoote5678]

@40:00 WOW! So true Forrest. Once I got away from religion, having been brainwashed since childhood, life is so much more precious. It absolutely changed my life infinitely for the better. As well as quelling the eternal damnation to hell fears.

[@dinkleburgc8516]

Forrest I don't comment much but when you get passionate about these disgusting conclusions and put them in the spotlight the way you do it's incredibly moving. Thank you for what you do. And thank you as well for your continued kindness and the humor you bring to the table!

[@herbbowers769]

That last monologue was awesome! It takes a enormous amount of hubris to imagine that all of space and time was created just for us.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Yeah, more than a fly landing on the White House concluding that it was build as a landing place for it (Herman Philipse).

[@soccerslife_227]

Forrest should react to Matt Walsh’s What Is A Woman Documentary. It would definitely be interesting to see how he dissects it from a biological standpoint.

[@MrTheclevercat]

Well he better try a lot harder than "Professor Dave" who made two videos which made skeptics look like utter retards. If you can't agree that a woman is an adult human female then you better avoid trying to take down this documentary imo. You will get burnt.

[@starfoam9467]

Yes Please!!!!

[@ohshitjeffrey3741]

But may be too much to ask, that is hateful misogyny just in the title

[@soccerslife_227]

@@ohshitjeffrey3741 That is a fair point. All I’m saying is that it’s more difficult to refute a certified biologist, someone who actually studies biology for a living. Hence why it would be more interesting if someone were to try to disprove it.

[@milkgrapes6420]

An important video for everyone to watch. Godspeed Forrest. We need more people like you

[@juliebabygirl]

"Fiction, fantasies & frauds"... sounds like religion to me... :) Great video as always Forrest!

[@jennoscura2381]

It sounds like supernatural religion. I am a member of The Satanic Temple. My religion doesn't have anything supernatural. It has all the elements of religion without the supernatural BS.

[@MogamiKyoko13]

Not sure why specifically, but every time a Creationist says "Evolutionist" or "evolutionism" I wanna bang my head against the wall. No one except Creationists use those terms and it drives me up a wall every time they use them so authoritatively as if everyone uses them.

[@atbing2425]

Imagine calling people who believe they are made up of atoms, "atomists".

[@hankboog462]

I wonder if they'll ever recognize the sheer irony of calling it a religion in a derogatory sense. I'm amazed they haven't yet

[@Ometecuhtli]

Creationist: I have a few questions about evolution(ism). Me: Ok... C: How can the big bang produce something from nothing? (Head banging intensifies)

[@die_buecher7090]

@YouAre Cancer We dont worship Darwin?!! Thats a shame because I already built a shrine.

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@hankboog462 They don't understand that dismissing evolution as religion undermines their own argument that you should listen to their religion because its a religion.

[@huntertrask6668]

23:56 this quote about purpose really got me, and its what reminds me that leaving a creationist worldview behind was a good decision. Religion works for some, but i know many people in the christian faith who have lost their joy, love, and appreciation of life because of their faith, specifically because they feel they have no freedom, and no choice to change themselves or the world around them.

[@lylesache5480]

Being a filthy dirty little sinner that would never be good enough and how I should be greatful and get on my knees.. just a few if my favorite things

[@JP-xg6bv]

@@lylesache5480 Yeah, and if your parents were abusive addicts then it makes for a delightful supercharge. Even God hates you!

[@grumpysanta6318]

Evolution is observed phenomena. That's the mind-boggling part. We literally see it happening.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Yup. It's fun to tell them that Canis Lupus Familiaris is an example of ongoing speciation. The same for reversed evolution of polar bears and brown bears.

[@tadferd4340]

@@marknieuweboer8099 My favourite is telling them that humans are a transitional species.

[@SgFlaxy]

People saying "life can't be a coincidence" has the same energy as a "you can't make this up" comment on a satirical news site.

[@Chaosmancer7]

And the thing is, even if they are right that it can't be a coincidence... they may not be right about "and therefore the Abrahamic God" For an example, I was recently watching a video where someone pointed out that the simulation hypothesis (we are actually living in a digital simulation) could mean that we were created with the purpose of discovering an answer to the problem of Entropy by a society that has existed towards the end of their universe and is looking for answers in how to preserve themselves. Or, we could have been created in the same vein as the wonderful short story "The Egg" by Andy Weir. We are all "God" expeirencing every single facet of life as we grow and move towards hatching, so that we can understand the truth between good and evil, by being everything and everyone. There are many theories that could be a "creator of the universe" that doesn't immediately mean "the Bible is right"

[@ComradeOgilvy1984]

I particularly like the "the perfection of the Earth for human life, and likewise the parameters of the universe -- that cannot be a coincidence" line of reasoning. Dude, over 99.9999999999999% of the known universe is nearly instantly lethal to humans.

[@Chaosmancer7]

@James Henry Smith Um... yeah? I believe in evolution and that the earth formed from stellar matter a few billion years ago. My head has not "imploded as a judgement from God" We have seen no evidence that is compelling for alien life to have visited Earth, and we know the power and technology needed to do so, so we are fairly certain they have not done so. Possession isn't real, and such accounts can be easily explained with known medical phenomenon. People do mysteriously and suddenly disappear. That's because we don't track people's movements and there are a few million of us in this one country alone, so it is easy to not tell anyone where you are going and disappear. That's why we have people who make a living tracking such disappeared people down. So... a fairly accurate summation of things people versed in science and reality believe and/or don't believe

[@ninjadogs3389]

The irony that he started talking about how complex the eye is and how it must be designed as I was looking at the screen with my glasses off, and me wondering why the hell were my eyes designed so terribly that I can even see any detail on his face without my glasses. so well designed /s

[@TheOmegaXicor]

the two arguments used (and I say arguments...) are always Free Will has caused humans to pollute the air, land and water to cause whatever damage has weakened your eyes (noone in the middle ages needed Glasses) OR sin is causing Genetic damage and you are suffering the effects of someone from 6000 years ago's sin. One or the other.

[@iwkaoy8758]

Your eyes are bad bee cause you recessive genes. That's like say yin a car rusting is proof of bad design. Isle so, bee leave van a car made it self is de same as bee leave van inn evolutionism. Don't say cars don't have bay bee bee cause that's Knott help you,it makes it worse. Bee leave van self reputation can make it self is like bee leave van a factory that makes cars made it's self. That's a Hong dread times Moore complicated.

[@TheOmegaXicor]

@@iwkaoy8758 "Your eyes are bad bee cause you recessive genes. That's like say yin a car rusting is proof of bad design. Isle so, bee leave van a car made it self is de same as bee leave van inn evolutionism. Don't say cars don't have bay bee bee cause that's Knott help you,it makes it worse. Bee leave van self reputation can make it self is like bee leave van a factory that makes cars made it's self. That's a Hong dread times Moore complicated." A car was made by a machine that was made by a machine that all the way back was made by a man (or a woman), in the same way I was made by my parents who were made by their parents who all the way back were made by two creatures who were very human like that we call (insert missing link here, I think it was Homo Neanderthal but I'm quoting off the top of my head) who were made by four of their kind this all goes back to the source. Either an immortal, eternal, invisible being did it or natural accretion did it, we have evidence for neither occurrence but natural accretion has been demonstrated to exist.

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

Not to mention that eyes in fact are not complex at all. They are very simple, and every single step of improvement is present in modern living organisms.

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@stefanlaskowski6660 create one inn a lab width de same material it's made from. Eye bee leave inn you and your intelligent mind, so go four it. It's very simple.

[@eolill]

At least half the reason I love watching these videos is that I learn a bunch about evolution and science history while I'm at it! It would be great to someday see some long-form educational videos on evolution without the creationists interrupting. =D

[@naomi0connor]

He actually did a really long live stream a while back explaining the birth of the universe and evolution and basically how everything turned out the way it did and it was very educational and there wasn’t any creationist arguments throughout the whole thing. I learned a lot from that video I would highly recommend it! :)

[@Raz.C]

I've found that theists have a VERY hard time grappling with the concept that EVERY fossil is transitional. They don't properly understand the nature or the properties that a transitional form would have. Their ignorance allows them to insist that there are no transitional forms. Even when you explain with the "taking a photo every day for 20 years," analogy, they still don't understand how every picture is transitional from what you used to look like to what you will look like. Furthermore, they also don't understand the notion of how pictures taken weeks apart equate to species only a few generations apart, while pictures taken years apart equate to species with MANY generations between them. It's a complete and utter failure on behalf of the theists. I don't think it's anything to do with the information, either. I think that there's a mental block that actively prevents a theist from being able to accurate gauge what's happening. If they recognised the reality in front of them, they'd have to admit that EVERY form is transitional and somewhere in the back of their minds they know that. So they won't ever do it. Whether they're sub-consciously steered away from any understanding, or whether they obtusely refuse to acknowledge objective reality, there's almost no point in trying to convey this information to the creationistic theist.

[@noriretherford]

Whew, getting tired of debunking the same tired arguments over and over? You'd think they could be a little more creative. Nice job on the video though!

[@sarazverinova405]

you could say their arguments dont...evolve! i will see myself out now thank you very much

[@HotBaraDad666]

Honestly, it seems to be true with anyone who's wrong. They say the same arguments over and over again, while those who are right move onto much more complicated questions.

[@DissedRedEngie]

Didn't you know, asking "why do you hate god" is the strongest argument ever?

[@Golems_victory]

@@sarazverinova405 nah u cool. I love bad. Jokes. Here i have one. What do u call a dragon that dosen't end a conversation....A DRAG....ON....... lmao read spyro comics then you may get the reference.

[@fore54k3n]

Of course they reiterate things because they sound good to those whom aren’t big critical thinkers in combination with many other factors but another big one is that they fall for ppl who say something with enough confidence because, “Why would there be ppl who say things with such confidence or zest ?” Something along those lines. But a lie that’s simple enough in many regards no matter how potentially big can be believed by many who want to believe which is another factor. I could go on and on with factors there is a rather large list of foundational false hoods that prop up these tools who say “How did we come from a rock” lol So their arguments haven’t been any newer in decades. You should check out some insane flat earther videos lol.

[@ninhydren2321]

I again want to thank you, Forest, for being an advocate for marginalized and/or disabled people. Your passion for science, seems, equal only to your passion for humanity and the diversity in both. I love that about you and your videos.

[@kasandrengovender2626]

This guy was an absolute joke. Thank you for parting your knowledge Forest and giving me a good laugh too.. really needed it❤️

[@kasandrengovender2626]

@James Henry Smith Yes.

[@scottneith1]

Wow you are a solid guy, I love the transparency about letting people know what you cut in and out. Love your videos. Keep it up

[@Cameron-yq5ug]

FINALLY, a solution for my bandwidth goblin problem! Thank you, Forrest!

[@Golems_victory]

LmTo. I knew Forrest loved fantasy

[@kylewalter3111]

Cats and dogs actually come from a single species called Miacids. My dad actually has a skull of one and you can see characteristics of both modern cats and dogs in it. Fundamentalists Christians, it's time to accept fact and reality. You can still believe in Christianity and accept evolution.

[@whatabouttheearth]

The clade Boreoeutheria included Dogs, cats and humans (among others), the daughter clades are Laurasiatheria (cats, dogs etc went down this line), and Euarchontagliers (humans, hares etc went down this line) kzbin.info/aero/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

[@isaacbruner65]

As far as I know all living carnivorans are thought to be descended from miacids (a paraphyletic group that is basically synonymous with basal carnivoramorphs). Miacids gave rise to the two carnivoran lineages, the "dog-like" caniforms (which includes everything from bears to seals) and "cat-like" feliforms (which includes cats, hyenas, and mongooses among others). I don't know that they've ever actually identified a single miacid species that is ancestral to all carnivorans, though. I think it would kind of be impossible to tell for sure.

[@peterashby-saracen3681]

I'm glad you mentioned this, but I have to disagree with you on a fundamental level as christianity, being totally anthropocentric, runs contrary to the foundations and tenets of evolution.

[@MichaelMammon]

Well, not really. If Evolution is accepted by Christians, it rules out the story of Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve ever existing, Eve cannot commit the primordial sin. Without Eve committing the primordial sin, there is no need for a Messiah to "save" you from damnation due to her primordial sin. Because there was no primordial sin committed, and no need for a Messiah to "save" you, the "lord and savior" Jesus Christ served no purpose. If the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was irrelevant, the entire basis of Christianity falls apart. It's kind of like telling a Flat Earther that he can believe the Earth is flat, but accept the Earth is round. It completely blows the foundation of their belief out of the water.

[@flambambam]

@@MichaelMammon Exactly. Some scientific claims are compatible with religious beliefs, but most undermine the foundations upon which those beliefs are justified. Without a total, figurative reintepretation of religious texts, modern science is logically incompatible with most of the claims and stories within them. It really bothers me when theists justify their beliefs with cherry-picked scientific theories, but fail to see that the same cherry grows from an entirely different tree.

[@Soapy-chan_old]

I really don't understand why the diagramm became such a misconception to people, I never thought this was literally how evolution worked, just an oversimplified representation of the idea of continuous change. Guess I was smarter as a kid than half of humanity.

[@Tcrror]

than*, just trying to help. And yeah, if you have an IQ above 75, you're more intelligent than half of the humans on the planet.. you're also more intelligent than an entire group of people! Trumpers! Isn't that a fun thought?

[@ponypapa6785]

I honestly always thought that the specific march of progress image is used as a visual aid to explain the concept of what is behind evolution (meaning that small changes over time can lead to vastly different results from the origin). I have never heard anyone use or refer to it as fact or proof or anything.

[@Soapy-chan_old]

@@Tcrror IQ is very arbitrary, so I don't use that as a metric.

[@martinmckee5333]

I feel the same way. I never saw it as "the answer" in such a way that continued discoveries ( and education, on my part) have made it seem that it impeded my understanding in any way. Of course, I think I had a reasonable understanding of the scientific process before I actually studied it.

[@reverendnate2735]

It's akin to looking at multiplication chart that goes from 1x1 to 12x12, and assuming that multiplication is not possible with decimals or fractions because they aren't included on the chart.

[@steade1e]

Love your explanation of “whether vs how”. I think this applies to many many situations and not only those involving people with disabilities

[@Abobziel]

12:25 this gives me an idea. Scientists and people in general should find the most taxonomically complex organism, and put it on a pedestal calling it “the most evolved organism”. This would be especially funny if people began idolizing the organism as the quintessence of all life in a similar way as people do with humans. Imagine if it was, like, a carrot of something as well

[@Rosyna]

That’s obviously the platypus. It has venom glands!

[@cepahreinholt8710]

I googled "most chromosomes in a animal" as a criteria idea and the atlas blue butterfly came out. So we can start idolizing it if you wan't to. It could be worst than that. They are super pretty they have several forms and they can fly.

[@Abobziel]

@@cepahreinholt8710 nice XD. I was thinking more so the life form that has changed the most drastically over time, but considering I’ve actually heard of people trying to assert that they’re a superior being because they have more dna in them, i can totally see this being the case as well. Also, since i was thinking of all life (or in this case, all eukaryotes, as we’re talking chromosomes), after doing a bit of diving i found a species of protists called Sterkiella histriomuscorum, which evolved 16 thousand nano-chromosomes, which only contain 1 or 2 genes per chromosome (the total number of genes encoded is about 18500)

[@Abobziel]

@James Henry Smith I feel like this is more than likely satire, but jesus doing a chair is funny as hell to me, especially if he comes back from the dead for the expressed purpose to do that chair

[@goodnightosaka]

"When you put your god on my dissection table, we'll talk." Seriously one of the most powerful statements I've ever heard.

[@iwkaoy8758]

Know it's Knott powerful. How could de create ted place a God own a table? That's like a video game character place sing a game developer own a table, that's Knott go wing two happen. You're tri inn two make dim prove some thing buy dew wing some ting M-pie sea bowl. That's like tail Lin some one two beet up a polar bear two prove day ken fight.

[@goodnightosaka]

@@iwkaoy8758 are you okay?

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@goodnightosaka Yes, why wood you ask?

[@funnyman7973]

@@iwkaoy8758 am sur der ar at leats a cople peple who cna beat an poler bere.

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@funnyman7973 Speak English, you are give van mii ahead ake width your bad spell Lin. Know one could fight a reel polar bear. Day wood get dyed at meat tea at Lee.

[@DavidEllis94]

In regards to 13:09 "A Christian who insists upon a literal interpretation of Scripture does so out of a lack of genuine faith." --Gregory the Theologian, one of the major figures at the early ecumenical councils in the formative years of the Roman church I'm not a believing Christian, myself, but I think this is a pretty heavy and valuable quote in moments like this lol

[@littlebitofhope1489]

So it is a metaphorical interpretation? So you have to go through the entire book trying to figure out what the other meaning is or what it symbolizes? Where does that end exactly? And why in the world would a perfect being do something like that? "Hello, I am an all powerful perfect being, but any information I give you is going to be couched in such a way that no one will agree about what I am actually saying. And if you get it wrong, you will be tortured for all eternity". Sounds like a D*ck to me.

[@DavidEllis94]

@@littlebitofhope1489 Again, not a Christian, but at least that is fairly easy to explain: Yeah it was written by humans, and even God's perfection acting through the imperfect lens of humanity isn't going to get it right, so.... But yeah, that's not even Gregory's point, here. Well, I'm no historian of theology, so I guess I don't know, either, but I get the sense that what he is saying is that a true believer does not have his faith shaken by finding out that some book isn't right. If you need that text to hold up in every way in order to feel faith in God, then your faith is a joke. Honestly, having been raised Catholic, I appreciate that sentiment. I never really believed much, but the kind of faith it seems like they were trying to teach me is more along the lines of "My God doesn't need this book to be true!" rather than "If this book is incorrect everything falls apart." And with that logic in mind, I think it's a great blow to be able to deal out to evangelicals to say "If you're so obsessed with your literal view of the Bible, then your faith must be flimsy as wet tissue paper, because you can't accept the world for what it is and still have the same belief, so you have to hide behind a stack of papers."

[@doloreslehmann8628]

Great comments here, I really appreciate you're adding that viewpoint, especially as you're not a Christian yourself. That's exactly what I feel, too. If you really have a strong fundament you're standing on, you don't fear it will all crumble down just because it gets shaken a little bit or it shows some cracks here and there. You trust that it can take a lot of blows and will remain standing.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

@@DavidEllis94 Yes, but what Gregory just said is that there is no evidence at all. If you take away the bible, there is nothing to learn about Xtianity from. No one would know about it. I understand that he is saying you have to have absolute faith no matter what, but I really don't see that as an improvement, or a good thing. To me it says that either way, they have no valid argument.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

@@doloreslehmann8628 What it says to me is that here is neither building nor foundation to have any cracks in. There is no fundament at all. You believe just because. And that because stands for nothing.

[@badgerdad5943]

New to your channel. Awesome work! New meaning for F.A.R.C.E ... Foolish Antiquated Rudimentary Creationist Explanations. As grateful as I am for videos like yours, I am also appalled that people like Hank are also producing videos. Hopefully a person will at least see both ... and come to the obvious conclusion.

[@simon3818]

Hey don’t underestimate those bandwidth goblins. They’re weak in small groups but a large horse is a formidable challenge.

[@bed2149]

Please don't edit it goblin horse is funnier

[@simon3818]

@@bed2149 yes it is

[@thetinfoilfreak]

"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. The less they know, the more opinions they have." - Dr. Thomas Hildern

[@thetinfoilfreak]

@James Henry Smith the Bible has no clue what it's talking about, yet it has more opinions on it than anything else, so why can't a person who hasn't read all of the pointless lies of a 1500 year old book that's been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misread tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of times by people wishing to extort others by way of religious lies and corruption have an opinion about something so ridiculous? Just because they haven't read it, doesn't mean that they know nothing about it.

[@skeptischism1324]

I love how sanctimonious guys like this are. Governed by his emotional attachment to his religion, and simply wont allow himself to see evolution through a neutral lense. Its always through the filter of their religion, or their holy book being taken 100% literal. They never complain about ANY other theory, and they trust science implicitly..............until it flies in the face of their holy books, or religious beliefs, then that scientific concept or theory is clearly wrong simply because it's counter evidence to their beliefs. They are completely dogmatic and axiomatic.........so almost impossible to reason with. See Kent Hovind or Matt Powell to clearly see why you cant get through to these people. The irony and hypocrisy this guys espouses is palpable.

[@davidfitnesstech]

Sanctimonious indeed. People like this always are. -and at the end of the day, all they're left with are unprovable claims and assertions.

[@domiro8156]

Excellent perception of creationists' personality and attitude ..... So far, the adjectives "dogmatic" and "axiomatic" have always managed to fit them perfectly!!!

[@skeptischism1324]

@@davidfitnesstech Amen (pun intended) lol.

[@skeptischism1324]

@@domiro8156 TY much, and i agree. They always project their shit on to us. Thats why they try and make science and evolution specifically a religion, cuz then they can just argue that WE are the dogmatic and axiomatic ones. Its so self defeating though........because when they do that they use the term "religion" into a pejorative, thus insulting their own belief that religion is a good thing. its so comical when i poit that outl

[@M4x1m1l14nn]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the General Theory of Evolution silent on the origin of biological life?

[@josuebuenrostro6269]

The phrase "Put your God on my disection table, then we'll talk." Is so metal

[@f3lifica]

I've had people talk to me in the way that guy speaks - the whole 'enlightened sage' 'I'm bestowing truth on you' act, and it's frustrating because they're so completely inside their own head and aren't noticing that I'm not AT ALL being swayed. Red flag whenever someone talks like that.

[@jungtothehuimang]

The 'whether' and 'how' idea made me rethink so many things that I had not even considered even though I consider myself quite open minded and very progressive. I think it's such a good point. Goes to show you're never too old or too smart to learn something new.

[@godloves9163]

There’s no evidence except in your imagination that one animal became another animal altogether over “time” fairy dust… people forcing it to mean this. Just because many believe that lie and claim it to be fact and true doesn’t mean it is… Furthermore, what is the evidence that one animal became another animal. Because the “supposedly in-between” also doesn’t prove that they came from a different animal. Just similar parts, that’s it. What evidence do you people have that common design = common ancestor other than claiming it is? Because common design can equally mean common designer. Especially from the evidence that no animal today produces another type of animal other than itself… please no fairy dust in the explanation. We want evidence other than the fairy dust nonsense.

[@jungtothehuimang]

@@godloves9163 This comment had NOTHING to do with what my original comment said at all! Do you know how to read? And no I'm not giving you anything but it is clear you are only here to be an argumentative donkey's ass. You're not at all willing to learn and that is evident. You can stay ignorant for all I care. If you really wanted to learn you'd watch Forrest's videos or go look for the evidence yourself. Bye.

[@Kelis98]

@@godloves9163 There is evidence of evolution it’s proven by people much smarter than you It’s a gradual process that happens over a long time You believe in magic with no evidence , you have no right to say anything Your god isn’t real and the Bible isn’t proof Science isn’t nonsense, you reflect any ideas that don’t conform with your own delusions There is tons of evidence for evolution IT’S FACT, you simply reject everything because it doesn’t align with your religion That’s the issue, you can’t accept that your book might be wrong Just admit you don’t understand it, this is proven science not “magic fairy dust” which is ironic considering you believe in gods making something from nothing It’s a gradual change based in environment The Bible isn’t true and even if you still believe in a good at least admit that evolution is real Why do you want to believe in your religion anyway? You didn’t watch the video did you?

[@Kelis98]

@@godloves9163 THERE’S YOUR PROOF kzbin.info/www/bejne/noDJg4FmgM6bhbc kzbin.info/www/bejne/hISZY4ehjrSJfbM kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZ2ne2qNetxkl6s kzbin.info/aero/PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXKzhIRnr9aZj5o kzbin.info/www/bejne/iWaQaKCkatB3p9E kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4a2lJKdo9KKg6M

[@angelawesneski5029]

I totally agree! The whole video was well done, but that one tidbit is really going to stick with me. I consider myself pretty progressive, too, but I'd never seen this particular reframing before.

[@hmneill]

Hi Forrest, I grew up very involved in Christianity and even went to seminary, I was extremely devout but always had questions about evolution as I knew these arguments just did not make sense. I have since deconstructed and love your content! I also had Leukemia twice in childhood and am disabled due to the treatment of it. So I appreciate your statements about asking “how” rather than “whether” and also acknowledging my own torment in trying to find a “reason” I had to have Leukemia. Pretty traumatic. Thank you!

[@Fragnet]

It's crazy that by just reacting to some videos you're able to teach so much, thank you for the knowledge you share with each video.

[@filipe.sm31]

Oh yes. I've been waiting for a new Reacteria! Love this series

[@bobmudge447]

Isn’t it amazing how willing they are to lie in defense of a book that says not to lie?

[@Just2Ddude]

What Foresst said about "gods plan" by torturing children and starving them.... That one hit good. I never thought about it this way. Ty for saying that.

[@judebrown1172]

Love your content Forrest! You are who inspired me to go into the field of evolutionary biology

[@julienmakesstuff9920]

I love love LOVE when you do these theoreticals, taking even the strangest arguments (somewhat) seriously and imagining what it would mean for them to actually be true. You don't just dismiss them, even when they seem ridiculous. It shows people who might have a scewed world view, or perhaps just a misunderstanding of something, what you're actually taking about. You're including everyone in the conversation, and taking your job seriously, as a scientist and educator. It's a complete 180 from the church who won't engage with ideas they don't like. I'm very grateful

[@Kurse_of_Kall]

"John and Jane are worlds more interesting than this guy, and they usually debunk themselves!" lmao I love this channel.

[@paisleepunk]

Isn't debunking oneself actually an interesting and worthwhile endeavor, even if it is basically so others can watch you and question why they are continuing on?

[@Kurse_of_Kall]

@@paisleepunk If you are self-aware that you are proving your previous arguments wrong, and are learning from the experience alongside the viewer, then yes. But John and Jane haven't learned anything new since they went to bible study in elementary school

[@stephenluttrell8958]

Wow… As a blind person, the last thing I thought someone would have to defend is our capability of using the bathroom on our own in an anti-evolution video. Thanks for the advocacy message by the way.

[@DeterminedCharcoalEater]

wait, then how did you write this comment if you're blind?

[@mr.saturn9757]

@@DeterminedCharcoalEaterthey probably used speech to text or they had somebody else write it for them.

[@phoebecara4361]

​​@@DeterminedCharcoalEater There are a lot of devices that allow someone with a disability to be independent. If you're curious there are tons of channels here on KZbin I recommend starting with Molly Burke

[@thogthemighty7960]

23:49 I love this. It genuinely sounds like a monologue The Doctor (particularly Capaldi's incarnation) would give, even in the delivery and intonation. And I agree. I choose my "purpose", that is my destiny which I made for myself.

[@thogthemighty7960]

@James Henry Smith come again, you're rambling. What is the question?

[@domiro8156]

Forrest..... do you have to always be SO enthusiastic and SO excited??????? Do you EVER get ..... discouraged or .... depressed or.... in bad mood????? May be NOT!!!! Thanks for your great work.... and for inspiring both kids and adults......

[@cerberaodollam]

My guess is either ADHD, or bipolar but only filming during the highs.

[@diehard7517]

@@cerberaodollam sure, he couldn't possibly be just an enthusiastic or energetic person.

[@danacarpender2287]

As always, great stuff! I would like to add that I am so everlastingly tired of hearing evolution called "random." It is anything *but* random. Mutations are random; evolution is a powerful sorting mechanism. It's as if someone put a big load of rock -- everything from huge chunks down to bits of sand -- into a series of finer and finer sieves. What goes in at the top is random. By the time it goes through the *first* sieve it is less random, and it becomes less so as it moves through the finer sieves. Imperfect analogy, but aren't they all? Random, my achin' ass.

[@joshfromga9017]

"Imperfect" doesn't begin to describe your theory.

[@micahfoley9572]

it's convenient how you can just look for the word "evolutionism" to know you're dealing with a liar

[@mysterioussoup3393]

I....to be sure, what side are you on???

[@micahfoley9572]

@@mysterioussoup3393 Side? Not sure it's a side, per se, but demonstrable truth i guess? If you can prove it, I'll believe it. 100% of the time. I am not my beliefs, I just wanna know stuff. But I think what you're asking is better answered by explaining that "-ism" denotes a belief system. Usually political, religious, or cultural. Applying it to evolutionary biology denotes a comical misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. You gotta work pretty hard to mistake evobio for an -ism. And sure, plenty of normal, incurious, hard working people may not know one way or the other what's an -ism and what isn't, but if you're dealing with an apologist, even an amateur one, you can be damn sure that they've had this distinction explained to them numerous times and simply prefer to misrepresent the counter argument facing them. Making them liars, and not to put too fine a point of it, I'd say cowards as well.

[@mysterioussoup3393]

@@micahfoley9572 OK, that's cool. I was just under the impression that you were using the word "evolutionism" to actually refer to people who believe in evolution and was calling THEM liars. I just misunderstood, if it was the other way around this reply would be 18 paragraphs explaining carbon dating, the fossil record, how religion was original made to comfort people and make money and a bunch of other stuff XD Glad you're a rational person. I have got a question though; do you think there is any other scientifically plausible origin of life that isn't evolution? Been racking my brains for weeks and just can't think of or find anything (I don't want to disprove evolution I'm just curious, even though evolution is obviously the logical answer).

[@micahfoley9572]

@@mysterioussoup3393 hmm... so I'm not a biologist, just a curious amateur, but I'll do my best to speak to what I've learned about these things. So first, evolution and abiogenisis are two separate fields of study. Evolution speaks to how life changes and adapts over time, and abiogenesis deals with how it all started. They get lumped together a lot, but they really shouldn't. The stuff that demonstrates evolution isn't the same stuff that they study to demonstrate abiogenesis. But Evolution, for its part, is so well supported that id say that regardless of how life ultimately emerged, it won't threaten to overthrow anything major about our understanding of evobio. It will surely add to it in important ways, but since we can observe evolution in real time and all through natural history operating in a consistent way, a LOT would have to be disproved for our understanding of evolution to be upturned in any major way. But that said, as our understanding of abiogenesis improves we'll undoubtedly learn new things about evolution, especially early and proto-life evolution, and that will surely improve our understanding of both fields. Cuz nothing is science is ever carved in stone. The future will bring us better tools and new ways to investigate and probably whole new version of evolution based on other types of life in other places, and we'll just keep learning and refining our hypotheses. I mean, we've found the fundamental building blocks of life on asteroids in space, which means they're almost certainly out there all over the place, suggesting that life probably is too, in one form it another. And based on how evolution is shaped by environmental pressures, who knows what cool new things we'll learn if we were to encounter non-carbon life? Or plants that don't have the sun to feed them. It's impossible know what cool stuff is out there, and It's super exciting to think about. :D

[@mysterioussoup3393]

@@micahfoley9572 Very well said :) I'm just fascinated by what alien flora and fauna might look like. Will aliens even have fauna and flora? Perhaps they have evolved entirely different methods of getting energy, maybe they don't even have senses or a perception, do they experience time, do they experience anything, do they experience more? The possibilities are almost infinite. I've always had sympathy for religious people who actively deny science, not because they won't get their vaccines or anything but because, unless they change their beliefs, they will never have that moment where you just sit down, look up and say "wow". When you realise just how much of a mystery existence itself is, and the very fact that you can say wow is because of that existence. Eventually we may find that the universe does have a purpose, so what? Whatever gave it that purpose exists and so is inferior to existence, nothing can truly be the reason for existence as that reason would have to exist. So the only logical explanation is that existence......doesn't have a reason. It's bittersweet but I love it. It's been a nice conversation, have a great rest of your life! :)

[@mkphilly]

I bumped I to you on the Atheist Experience discussing what being transgender is to a caller and was so impressed I had to come to your channel!! As a senior cis male gay Jew (how's that for defining oneself- which order I can't decide 🤔) having volunteered for years in an LGBTQ+++ Center I always want to learn more to wisely educate myself and others on being one's own humanness and humanity.... great job!!

[@doloreslehmann8628]

Your closing words were - I can't even come up with a fitting word here - just overwhelming. Thank you!

[@chrispysaid]

I think a good analogy to get the process of incremental mutation in evolution through to people who just don't seem to be able to get it is the Ship of Theseus paradox, except rather than changing out a wooden mast for another wooden mast and a wooden hull for another wooden hull, etc, you could think of it like changing a single plank on the deck from a wood plank to an aluminum plank, and make those changes incrementally and across the entire voyage until by the time you get to the other shore you have an entirely metal boat, and then ask them to point to the part of the journey where the ship is no longer a wooden ship and is now a metal ship.

[@hugoquinonez2975]

Would doing the same but with "when does a mountain become a hill?" work as well?

[@summerzeelee]

I've been recovering from surgery and these videos have been a delightful distraction and I'm learning a lot! Thank you!

[@katieoberst490]

I love how you give people with disabilities their respect as a particular diversity of humanity, not a lesser form of humanity. I've been fighting with that horrible view my entire life. Too few science communicators tackle the issues of disabilities when talking about evolution. I think it's scary for a lot of people, so I'm really happy when someone has the balls to tackle the issue in a positive way. Thank you!!!

[@katieoberst490]

@James Henry Smith Yeah, you're definitely a troll... and while I'm not religious anymore, you realize that most Christians accept evolution as fact, right??

[@teacherdave27]

Great video, Forrest ! An easy and thorough takedown of a guy who made himself an easy target. The only thing I thought you would say that you didn’t was to point out that he was arguing against evolution and then took a hard turn into cosmology, which evolution says nothing about. It’s an obvious straw man that all creationists use, but pretending that evolution has anything to do with the creation of the universe simply reveals his willful ignorance of what question(s) evolution actually answers.

[@teacherdave27]

@James Henry Smith I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic. If it’s sarcastic then it’s a bit weak, if it’s serious then you are a powerful loon.

[@ineffablecraving8697]

Your rant at the end was incredible. I don’t think I’ve ever heard such an articulate argument against the whole notion that the universe somehow needs a god, but god doesn’t. It’s such an obviously illogical claim but I’ve always struggled to clearly explain it to my dogmatic friends. I love how passionate you are about spreading truth and compassion in the midst of all this nonsense. I love your videos!

[@diarmuidkuhle8181]

Obviously the universe doesn't require any god in order to exist. I mean it is patently there, yet we have no solid proof of any gods. However I always find the 'so what caused god' argument somewhat disingenuous, because a god would have to be something which is not bound by the laws of the universe as we know it, including the law of causation. Otherwise such a being or beings would by definition not be god-like.

[@RodneyW]

@@diarmuidkuhle8181 You are forgetting about the Babel fish. It's a dead giveaway.

[@NaThingSerious]

“If you saw a basketball You wouldnt just think it made itself” You’re right, I would think it was made through decades of developing the sport and leather and stitching techniques that ‘evolved’ to form this new basketball. The same way if I saw an animal, I wouldn’t just assume some magical being made it from nothing, I would think that it evolved naturally through billions of years of very small changes.

[@johnbergman1164]

Love when you include specific examples of evidence. Prior to my own deconstruction I didn't encounter a lot of creation refutation material that got hyper specific like you do. If I had your content a decade ago I probably would have deconverted much sooner. Love your stuff.