Responding to Critics: Discovery Institute is Trying to Gaslight You

[@seraphonica]

imagine being ashamed of correcting one's position when proven wrong, moreso than being ashamed of actually BEING wrong.

[@curiousnerdkitteh]

In reality they should be ashamed of neither, what they should be ashamed of is: 1) not doing their homework/deliberately lying and THOSE being the reasons they're wrong 2) not being ashamed of being ashamed of correcting their position 3) lying about their previous position and trying to cover it up and gaslight people 4) Lying in general ongoingly as standard practise

[@CreationMyths]

I'm gonna go with "all of the above", but also, yeah! Being wrong is fine *if you own up to it and don't continue to be wrong in the future*. But alas, that's a bridge to far.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Now imagine what they shóúld be ashamed of: refusing to learn, ao by correcting falsehoods.

[@johnburn8031]

The problem with young earth creationists is they take the data and force it to fit their preconceived ideas, rather than letting the evidence led them to better conclusions.

[@midlander4]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr err, whatever 'John's 🤣🤣🤣

[@PrixyPurple]

Imagine a organization with millions of dollars feeling the need to go back and forth this much with Creation Myths - a hobby KZbin channel with not quite 8k subscribers. I think you are getting under their skin Dr. Dan! Nice going! (Also audio is MUCH better in this one whatever you did keep it this way)

[@CreationMyths]

You know what, if DI wants to keep wasting their time arguing with me...who am I to stop them? Keep it coming, DI! Oh, and I turned down the gain and put the mic right in front of me, instead of higher gain and further away on my desk. So it's probably about 18 inches from me instead of over a meter, but lower gain, so picking up less background noise.

[@Mr.AndersonCrosses]

@@CreationMyths really it's not a fair fight, because only one side can afford to employ the mind of an actual evolutionary biologist. The other can't secure those services and has to resort to a geologist/lawyer (I guess?). It's like an amateur going up against a true professional. Dr. Dan is not the underdog in this one. Also, there are lawyers, and there are LAWYERS. This guy doesn't appear to know where the courthouse is...

[@midlander4]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr always a priority to jobless xtians without science degrees

[@paulgarrett4474]

​@JohnWinters-on8jr how much of the genome is functional frankie?

[@midlander4]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr another zinger. Atheists are quaking in their beds at this clued up xtian's verbal and scientific mastery

[@TheRobertCarpenter]

It's amazing to watch the position shift happen in real time. Additionally, it's another fantastic example that there is a group Creationists have less respect for than evolutionists and that's...their own audience.

[@CreationMyths]

Spot on on both counts. They're saying "we've never said that" *while still putting out content saying that*. Just treating their audience as though they cannot read.

[@EdwardHowton]

@@luxliquidlumenvideoproduct5425 Thank you for letting us know your diagnosis, I guess, but you really shouldn't be using the internet while you're in rehab.

[@John.0z]

"double-think" is the hallmark of Luskin and DI.

[@celiand2618]

Feeding the algorithms, you're doing a great job on showing how they effed up and are now speeding off road and denying the speed and the landscape.

[@FutureWorldX]

Mr Farina! Here, Go, Go, Go, Go, Go, Go! You don't do it! Show me the Chemistry! Come to the board and write!

[@aralornwolf3140]

It was stupid then, since the chemistry was in the papers... specifically, on the screen above him.

[@louisjov]

It's hilarious how quotable that shit show really is. I think Dave could have presented himself less antagonistically (for the sake of optics), but holy shit.... when you compare Tour's behavior to Dave's behavior, it's obvious who is irrationally defense about their position

[@StrawberryVein]

I'm so glad you did a whole video focusing on the gaslighting in this situation. I was already in awe of how blatant it was, but then they went and wrote another article SPECIFICALLY stating that you did not change their position. Absolutely stunning 👏👏👏

[@CreationMyths]

Unbelievable, right?

[@madamsloth]

Great video. It makes me so happy that you have all the receipts .

[@CreationMyths]

Allllllllllllllll the receipts.

[@rhanak4115]

What a brilliant course DI has chosen! They feel pressured to respond to critics like you because you're reaching an increasingly large audience, but every time they pretend to defend their points in front of lay people they risk drawing their audience's attention to you, and a few more will start to see through the BS. Keep up the excellent work! You deserve many more subs!

[@dlwestphalen]

Hi Dr Dan for putting together the video. I am not a biologist myself … just a dumb Engineer (with a PhD in Thermodynamic). I confess when I watched the debate, Dr Luskin sounded quite convincing in some of his arguments. I repeat … “sounded”. In particular, the claim on how the transcript abundance was reported (“averages”). To be honest, I was doubtful of his claim … I suspected he was misreading the scientific literature. Thanks for going deep into the claim. I think the only difference between DI and other less sophisticated creationist is that they obfuscate when misquoting science.

[@EdwardHowton]

Sounding convincing is what con artists do. The "con" part stands for _confidenec._ It takes a lot of effort to learn how to spot when someone is faking, the way Luskin and his ilk do. There's tells, but it might be easier to just learn more about the topic so the lies fall flat in the first place, which is also a lot of work. Sometimes it boils down to specific word choice being slightly off in a way that's barely detectable unless it's written down and an expert spots the BS. Big reason why debates are worthless. The whole point of the Gish Gallop is to flood the audience in fake confidence, and that's what -people- like Luskin do for a living.

[@hammalammadingdong6244]

“We have always been at war with Eurasia.”

[@MossyMozart]

@hammalammadingdong6244 - Thinking about the same doubleplus good Newspeak.

[@nagranoth_]

gasp! creationists lying?

[@CreationMyths]

Shocking. This is my shocked face.

[@MossyMozart]

@nagranoth_ - That's enough to give one the vapors!

[@heathenwizard]

It’s really telling that DI keeps screaming about how ENCODE supports their position - and the authors of ENCODE explicitly don’t support it in the same goddamn paper. I’d love to see the ENCODE authors drop into a DI livestream and just go “I didn’t say that, and said the opposite; Did you even read my f@&$%# paper?”

[@RCGamex]

I believe on Dapper’s channel that would be a Trojan source 😂

[@M.Neukamm]

BTW, writing dozens of papers with an identical message ("the myth/fall/demise/demolition/blow to/... junk DNA") is kind of mentally disturbed. 🤓

[@borisbauwens7133]

That list of functions for sequence unconstrained regions is... special. Cis-regulatory elements are not sequence constrained?! That would mean that most of the regulation of the genome can be done by random sequences. In other words, according to the DI most of the incredibly complex genomic regulation they're so amazed at, could be produced by just inserting any random DNA. These people need a pain receptor that is activated by internal inconsistency.

[@velvetmagnetta3074]

Yes! And by lying about the genome, these Creationists are highlighting the fact that a god just slapped us together giving little to no thought to the process! 😂🤣😂 If they would instead stop misrepresenting the science, their audience could be in awe of the incredible ingenuity of the process and sheer amount of substitutions with which life can sustain itself. I think that's incredible! And an audience predisposed to believing in a god would attribute these amazing things to that god naturally.

[@susansays]

Oh my gosh, it just doesn't get boring. SO MUCH FUN! And every time you go over the information from a slightly different angle, I understand it better. :-) Thank you again!

[@cthellis]

I think the ratio of DI damage control and gaslighting to “actually saying anything ever” is at least 25:1

[@kemicalhazard8770]

I just started a Philosophy of Science class at uni, you'll never believe this. To make an example of non science, my professor brought up Kitzmiller V Dover, since there was a philospher of science present as a witness.

[@CreationMyths]

That’s perfect. Love that that case is still paying dividends.

[@a2sbestos768]

Yes, they think the audience has goldfish memory spans (this is not entirely false, tbh). So I'd be expecting another "Junk DNA myth" piece from them in a month or two.

[@CreationMyths]

I fully expect more of the same, absolutely.

[@mrapistevist]

I do enjoy listening to someone that knows what he's talking about taking the boots to frauds. 😊

[@maxjohn6012]

Excellent video, Dan. You nailed it with the advice for the DI's authors to respect their audience - the garbage that EN's editors green light is insane. Just in the last 24 hours they published an article that included a *verbatim* tornado-in-a-junkyard. They have absolutely no respect for their audience. It's been fascinating watching this all unfold and I'm so glad you've got their attention - it's an unrivalled opportunity to hold their feet to the fire (which you're doing with style). "Strenuously ignoring" is golden 😂

[@curiousnerdkitteh]

Epic work, Dan! You might just succeed in dragging Discovery Institute kicking and screaming into the realm of actual science.

[@CreationMyths]

I doubt it but I'm gonna keep trying!

[@mepollack]

Let’s face it: their key aim is not to shore up their position, which they assert with minimal and often contradictory evidence, but to find holes in the available evidence other people present and use it as room to say that they could be right. That’s always been their MO, even if they refuse to own up to it. Even when it’s their assertion, they largely come into discussions with the assumption that theirs is somehow the default position. It’s the reason they gaslight, it’s the reason they respond without addressing the most important and relevant points.

[@john211murphy]

Next time you talk to the creationists, open the conversation with this statement. "LYING FOR JESUS IS STILL LYING".

[@Prometheus_Bound]

I'm very interested to see if you get into Bechly's article on "Fossil Friday: Did Giant Dinosaurs Swim Across Oceans"

[@CreationMyths]

Sorry, just dealing with the junk DNA nonsense.

[@Prometheus_Bound]

@@CreationMyths Yeah, I figured. Maybe Dr. Duff or Erika will take these on. :)

[@CreationMyths]

Given how Bechly is regularly lashing out at anyone who's mildly criticized DI, I'm sure there are people who will cover it.

[@shassett79]

Are you trying to usurp Professor Dave's place on the Discovery Institute's dartboard or what? Also: I really enjoyed the bit where you completely nuke their claims about being consistent on the issue with a simple keyword search _on their own blog!!_

[@CreationMyths]

lol, not trying to take Professor Dave's crown, but maybe they'll put me on the outer bullseye.

[@shassett79]

​​​@@CreationMythsRegardless, the sheer volume of specific information you offer, coupled with the even tone of your delivery, will certainly make them squirm. The "best" defense DI has against Dave seems to be whining about how mean he is, but they won't be able to attack you in those terms.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

​@@CreationMythsMaybe if you try really hard you can get Gunther to call you deplorable like Erica.

[@CreationMyths]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime I was frankly insulted that he left me out of that. What's a guy gotta do, right?

[@EdwardHowton]

Y'know, DI is probably happy to have something to distract them while they're focus-testing their next anti-Dave video series. At this point they probably want their audience to forget Dave exists at all so they an come back to him in a few months when memories have faded and the sheep are ready to be antisocially engineered to the new attack strategy.

[@MossyMozart]

Thank you, Dr Dan C Myths. I appreciate the straight truth and learning opportunity. Reality is so fascinating, enthralling, and mind blowing that I do not understand the creationist obfuscating embroidery. ^_^

[@VinceOConnor]

Every time I hear your ending statement about not getting fooled I hear the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" in my head. 🙂

[@Mr.AndersonCrosses]

He should add the "whaaaa!" To the end ..

[@CreationMyths]

came here to say I should do the scream but that joke has already been made.

[@Mr.AndersonCrosses]

@@CreationMyths when will you learn that all of my ideas are good ones?

[@CreationMyths]

@@Mr.AndersonCrosses As you know, I've already started implementing some of them, so I'm sure it won't be long.

[@Mr.AndersonCrosses]

@@CreationMyths I made you a little something-something. Check my channel.

[@louisjov]

I'm glad that you present all this information and these refutations calmly and respectfully. I was watching Professor Dave's videos about the DI for a minute there, and not saying that their positions aren't laughable, but after a while making fun of them and just in general him being a dick about it got kinda exhausting to watch. In my experience, no one changes their minds after being called an idiot, and although making fun of these people is fun, ultimately we want them to change their minds, especially those people that are largely uneducated and somewhat on the fence about the issue

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

Dave isn't trying to change the mind of the scammers, he's targeting the brainwashed victims. If you humiliate the scammer the victims have a chance to wake up and learn the truth.

[@louisjov]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime I yeah I don't think he is trying to change their mind. I'm not even sure if you _can_ change the mind of someone like James Tour, but what you can do is change the minds of people that are friendly to Tour's ideas. Usually, coming across to as an asshole in a debate, isn't very productive to that end. Look at the recent debate with Flint Dibble and Graham Hancock. Flint absolutely would have been in his right to mock Graham the same way Dave was doing with James, but he deliberately didn't, and let Graham Hancock come across as the crazy unhinged person focused on character assassinations. And lots of people afterwards that were fans of Hancock decided to reconsider some of their views, because Flint had solid evidence, but also because Flint refused to take the bait of falling into an argument about character instead of a debate about science

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@louisjov _"I yeah I don't think he is trying to change their mind. I'm not even sure if you can change the mind of someone like James Tour"_ No, he's not, because people like James know they are lying for their scam. A scammer can't be convinced they are wrong because their "job" relies on them lying. _"but what you can do is change the minds of people that are friendly to Tour's ideas. Usually, coming across to as an asshole in a debate, isn't very productive to that end"_ Except that everything these people need is already available for free with zero tone or attitude. And they ignore it. Did you ever ask why? It's because people like James are brainwashing them to ignore information from the world. You can't help those people without exposing the scammer as a fraud. _"Look at the recent debate with Flint Dibble and Graham Hancock. Flint absolutely would have been in his right to mock Graham the same way Dave was doing with James, but he deliberately didn't, and let Graham Hancock come across as the crazy unhinged person focused on character assassinations"_ Yes, and it most cases it didn't matter. The Hancock fans ignored that Hancock lied about what Flint said on white supremacy and cheered for Hancock as the victim. _"And lots of people afterwards that were fans of Hancock decided to reconsider some of their views, because Flint had solid evidence, but also because Flint refused to take the bait of falling into an argument about character instead of a debate about science"_ You and I have different data. I saw more people mocking Flint for having a good relationship with his father than I saw people "waking up" from the Hancock brainwashing. And they completely ignored misquoting Flint on his references to former white supremacy authors. The issue with scammers will always be how they brainwash the victims to only listen to them. It is similar to a cult. You have to break them out of the brainwashing and one way is to expose the ring leader as a fraud. That requires a more active approach.

[@louisjov]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime oh there were definitely a lot of people mocking Flint, don't get me wrong, but if flint had came across as a dick and an arrogant asshole, people would have been less receptive to his ideas. Is that stupid? Yes of course, people should come to conclusions based on evidence not the attitudes or tones of voice that people have, but the reason people like Graham Hancock are so popular is precisely because most people don't reason that way. If you want to change people's minds you have to meet them at their level, even if that means being the bigger person for a bit, and trying as hard as you can to be respectful to kind of insane ideas. I used to be super into UFOs and ancient technology and stuff like that, what changed my mind in the end was the evidence, but listening to people who are genuinely nice people made me a lot more receptive to hearing the evidence in the first place. What Flint was doing is a total uphill battle for sure, but if being a respectful presenter of the evidence gets 5-10% of the folks think about reconsidering the evidence, vs a presentation that comes across as arrogant getting 1% of the people to reconsider the evidence, well 5 to 10% sounds like a win to me

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@louisjov _"oh there were definitely a lot of people mocking Flint, don't get me wrong, but if flint had came across as a dick and an arrogant asshole, people would have been less receptive to his ideas"_ Not if someone could expose Hancock as the scammer he obviously is. And that doesn't require much in the way of science. _"Is that stupid? Yes of course, people should come to conclusions based on evidence not the attitudes or tones of voice that people have, but the reason people like Graham Hancock are so popular is precisely because most people don't reason that way"_ Now you're ignoring brainwashing and the popular narrative of anti-intellectualism. People don't love Hancock because of his stories. They love him because he says science is dumb and they are smart. He's not selling Atlantis, he's selling anti-education and anti-science. Like brainwashing, you can't fix that with facts, you need to expose the obvious issue. _"If you want to change people's minds you have to meet them at their level, even if that means being the bigger person for a bit, and trying as hard as you can to be respectful to kind of insane ideas"_ You're also forgetting that everything these people need is freely available online with ZERO tone. It's called research papers. They actively avoid this type of information already. Reading them the paper isn't going to change the fact they aren't going to accept the evidence. You're also skipping the part of the brainwashing from Tour and Hancock that claims science is corrupted. If you try to calmly point to a paper on evolution they will tell you that is invalid because science is corrupt or dogmatic. Being kind or polite won't change anything. _"what changed my mind in the end was the evidence"_ Then you aren't THESE people. These people are brainwashed to ignore evidence. I really think you're missing that key point. If I convinced you that all UFO data was false and you can't trust scientists, why would a kind scientist have any luck presenting you data? But if someone could convince that I was a fraud and a scammer just in this to make money on UFO narratives, then you might start to question all the information I once gave you.

[@shaber9]

Thanks for this thorough and methodical exposition of yet another facet of the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of the “Discovery Institute”. You and Dave Farina of “Professor Dave Explains” make quite a team.

[@CreationMyths]

His DI series is the definitive take-down, but I’m happy to be contributing.

[@chables74]

Thanks Dr Dan!

[@sciencenerd7639]

this is great, keep up the good work

[@CreationMyths]

Thank you!

[@KYevolution]

The great irony here is the distinction between functional and junk rests on fitness. Junk is an unfortunate term in my opinion but, as Dan points out, evolution is a fundamental concept in defining function. This is all about looking at nature through this theological lens of purpose. Evangelical, conservative Christians have tied their religious beliefs to purpose, whether it is purpose in their personal lives and experiences or purpose in every minute facet of nature. Virtually every absurd scientific claim by creationists is linked to some theological commitment. This is a classic example of that.

[@Capt.Pikles]

You’re being incredibly generous calling Luskin a Doctor. I’m happy to see more people going after the DI. Keep to the great work.

[@CreationMyths]

He has a legit Ph.D. It’s in geology, so I have no idea why he’s leading the charge on this, rather than one of the DI biologists. But still.

[@Capt.Pikles]

@@CreationMyths his degree affords him the title, his behavior is completely contrary though. That’s their whole grift: Chemistry professionals deny evolution, geologists deny evolution - the only people they don’t talk to about evolution are the actual biologists and that’s so that they can’t be accused of completely lying. Just look at James Tour.

[@thylacoleonkennedy7]

9:18 I feel like the idea that junk DNA is "Darwin friendly" is a bit ahistorical given that Darwin was pretty well known to freak out when he couldn't find an explanation for characteristics like the tails on peacocks (of course the explanation was sexual selection and in this case it's, what, neutral theory? But I could imagine Darwin seeing that 92% number and being very distressed about it).

[@command.cyborg]

Good stuff 😎👍 Imagine, an antievolutionist organisation being wrong by not doing proper research! It's got to be virtually unheard of 🤦🤣

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

Another aspect of translating "noise" is that it can leadd to toxin proteins, mifolded proteins. Stuff taht can easily end up harming the cell. So, it's not only about avoiding the energy cost of translating junk/noise.

[@velvetmagnetta3074]

Why didn't Discovery Institute send Dr. McLatchi to debate Dr. Dan instead of that used car salesman, Casey Luskin? From the beginning of the debate, that guy, Luskin, annoyed me. Not because I know enough biochemistry to know he's wrong, but because I know a bullshitter when I hear one. If DI has the desire to be at least somewhat respected outside its insulated echo chamber, send someone to debate Dr. Dan who knows what they're talking about, someone who knows better than to make spurious but fancy-sounding claims, someone who's not such a fast-talker, someone who has enough self-respect themselves to not try to trick or lie to their audience. Send someone who respects their audience at least enough to tell the truth. I have to say, that debate was a poor showing of the supposed more "Christian" side trying to convince us God did all this on purpose. Because whether or not a god exists, whether or not a Christ exists, whether or not a purposeful designer exists or a more hands-off devine being exists, Dr. Dan and not Casey Luskin is the one representing the truthful, honorable, more Christ-like side of this debate! (Sorry, Dr. Dan. I hope that last statement was not an insult to you and your beliefs, whatever they are! 😉)

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

Really great video, thanks!

[@rumraket38]

"I'd like to ask Dr. McLatchie.." Time for his spin and lies.

[@baden4462]

Very interesting stuff Dr. Dan!

[@RCGamex]

It has been amazing watching this develop in real time.

[@CreationMyths]

Isn’t it fun?

[@LittlePinkBowser]

lol, 7:30-9:34 if we keep saying its dead it will go away right?

[@evilgingerminiatures5820]

Keep on at em good sir

[@CreationMyths]

Thank you, I will.

[@dib737]

Great video, Dan!

[@CreationMyths]

Thank you!

[@eebsvaldizon14]

Professor Dave and you should link up and dialog

[@CharlesPayet]

As a Biology major (BA in ‘94 UNC Chapel Hill), I had a strong interest in cellular biology and genetics. At the time, I could never have imagined continuing to learn more about those fields in young earth creationist debunking videos 30 years later.

[@ianchenofficial]

As a biology major then you’ll know all there is to know about palaeontology and geology. - like Georgia Purdom. 😆😆

[@CharlesPayet]

@@ianchenofficial I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It feels like you think that I’m a YECer like that idiot you mentioned. If so, you’re gravely mistaken. In point of fact, I was complimenting Dan, and thanking him for teaching real science, for which I have a deep & abiding love.

[@CharlesPayet]

@@ianchenofficial not sure why my first comment was deleted. Quite irritating. I really have no idea what you’re trying to say, @ianchenofficial . Are you comparing me to that AiG quack? If so, you’re sorely mistaken.

[@vestafreyja]

@@CharlesPayet Knowing Ian he is making fun of Georgia Purdom.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

If Latin wasn't already a dead language, we'd be charging Dan with attempted murder for his pronunciations!

[@CreationMyths]

Oh I know it's wrong. I make no apologies. Take it up with the million sources on the internet who can't agree.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

@@CreationMyths "Say now facie and he said phasi for he could not frame to pronounce it right"

[@CreationMyths]

Look once I found the guy on youtube vehemently insisting the only correct pronunciation is "FAK-ee-ay" I was like nope, screw it, just gonna use the easy one.

[@crownhouse2466]

@@CreationMyths How about "prima fuckyay? 😇

[@Beady-ys7et]

Nice and detailed explanations

[@wcdeich4]

Hi Dr Dan, I have a friend whose daughter just graduated from high school. She was accepted into a prestigious university, but was denied a scholarship b/c she's a legal resident alien, not a citizen. Do you know where I could find info for scholarships for people in her situation? I tried to google it, but if you google "documented immigrant scholarships" it only returns "undocumented" results & if I google "legal resident alien scholarships" it only returns results for "illegal" - I'm not sure if that is b/c Google is going down hill, or the topic is just "google bombed" by the results being swamped by websites primarily talking about the info I do not need to find. Her daughter dreams of becoming a doctor, so I would really like to help them find a way to get some kind of financial assistance.

[@M.Neukamm]

When I learned one lesson, it's this: never ever debate with those cranks. They are dishonest to the core. Trying to get them to make an admission is like nailing jelly to a tree. I admire your patience and endurance, Dan. Excellent work. 👍

[@numericalcode]

Just using Prima facie tells me the person is being a pedantic jerk.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

Are you saying you assume they're a jerk prima facie?

[@numericalcode]

@@Crispr_CAS9 Well done!

[@NitroIndigo]

Why do you keep delaying the Wrong Answers Only stream?

[@CreationMyths]

For a while it’s been a placeholder for if I didn’t have anything else to do, and then I had to coordinate with my guest for that one. We’re doing it next week! For real!

[@bb21again.67]

Look ! Just tell apologists to bring god in front of everyone for once and for all instead of trying to pander to their obvious attempts at misdirection and all this waffle.

[@TheGloryofMusic]

You are mispronouncing 'prima facie'.

[@CreationMyths]

No forking shirtballs.

[@johnburn8031]

Pray tell, how do you pronounce it?

[@chuckliquor3663]

Physiognomy real.

[@elguapo2831]

Lot's of pretty pictures and charts in evolution. Wake me up when you find one of "nothing" turning into life.🤡🌎

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

That's creationism, not evolution. Are you researching flat Earth?

[@elguapo2831]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime You must like fairytales. Once upon Deep Time there was a 🐸 that turned into a 🤴 from Deep Time. The End

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@elguapo2831 _"You must like fairytales"_ Who doesn't like a good fairytale? But that "nothing to life" claim is creationism, not evolution.

[@elguapo2831]

@@NinjaMonkeyPrime You really get around. This not the first time we've tango. How can you honestly look at the immense complexity of DNA and think it was formed by natural processes? How many letters written in the sand until you realize that it was the work of an intelligent agent?

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

@@elguapo2831 You're welcome to imagine an invisible sky wizard if you want, but there's no evidence of any wizards or magic. That's why science only deals with nature and not the supernatural. But your intelligent agent seems pretty stupid at design.