Running Out of Dialogue Options

Buy my book here! store.bookbaby...
Planet Peterson Store! planetpeterson...
DISCORD (fixed link) / discord
Check out my podcast rss.com/podcas... or open.spotify.c...
Support me on Patreon / planetpeterson
Support me on Venmo: account.venmo....
Be sure to follow me on social media!
Instagram: / planetpeterson
TikTok: @planet_peterson

[@planetpeterson2824]

You're going to see Angry Peterson in the next few videos. I was not having it with my guests during this live stream.

[@magnuscolable]

Best Peterson

[@madara211000]

That's fair, because a vast majority aren't even listening to your responses. They're just waiting to speak to further assert lies. No reason to treat a liar with respect.

[@ChickenHunter08]

Hey Peterson, does it help extra to subscribe to Patreon and watch your videos here? As in, do you only get revenue at patreon from the subscription, regardless of number of views?

[@planetpeterson2824]

@@ChickenHunter08 Patreon revenue is ONLY from subscriptions... there are no ads there, so video views don't matter one bit.

[@nicksykes4575]

Eric "don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry" Peterson, is on a par with Kracatony, you two should do a colab, I'd love too see the pair of you tearing some of these bozos a new one!

[@mr.horrorshow6365]

"Being related doesn't mean we come from monkeys" "We know that, but evolution never claimed we did, that's a huge misconception" "But we didn't come from monkeys" "We know, we never said that." "But you don't listen, we never came from monkeys" I swear, you were way too patient with this dude

[@rylanasher4756]

I love the "running out of dialogue options" joke. Calling him an NPC without calling him an NPC. So funny 😂

[@hail_satan]

This is what you get when your entire science education comes from kent hovind VHS tapes 🤷

[@biggusdoggus]

And the tracking needed adjustment.

[@HisZotness]

Caller thinks, among other ridiculous things, natural selection means the organism selects its own genes. And he's definitely related to rocks.

[@stringtheorysucks]

God I hate mud fossil crap

[@ItsRJC123]

100% only true thing he said all night lol

[@TheMadTurtle]

I blame TierZoo

[@doely8825]

Everytime with the “evolution is just a theory” For the dim dims that repeat this, a scientific theory is a collection of facts and evidence used to explain an observed phenomenon. A scientific theory is the highest accolade that science can give

[@davids11131113]

Exactly.

[@Nekotaku_TV]

He told him this and he still kept saying it. He doesn't listen, doesn't care, doesn't understand. He's a human with a brain that can't think beyond instinct.

[@odinson6348]

That phrase alone is enough to establish they don't have a good grasp on the subject.

[@benduhova1643]

Theory is just a theory when I want it too

[@celiand2618]

I had to almost headbutt an otherwise cool guy to get him out of the 18th century idea that hypothesis upgraded into theory and then into laws... It's like the history of the scientific method is explained up to Newton and then abruptly stopped before reaching Darwin... And don't even begin with the last part, the peer reviewing, an actually rather old idea (17th century) but that had to wait the 20th century to be fully implemented in the process. Not only science is rather badly taught, the very history of the discipline is swept under the rug. I understand 2020 better. :(

[@onebigd313]

The anger was justified in my opinion everybody saying chill should try talkin to idiots for extended periods of time 😂

[@jojorose1947]

I hate that I love this content so much

[@Minisynapse]

25:12 The table slam and the frustration ridden "WWWHHY!" is so relatable 😂

[@anthonycrumb5753]

Lisrening to this guy makes me think that if face palming was an automtic reaction my head would have been turned into jelly hours ago.

[@abeminslow4085]

24:42 the moment Erik's brain turned off for a few seconds. Poor guy

[@planetpeterson2824]

I was looking for something to kill myself with, but I didn't see anything

[@foolishlyludicrous]

"Are you related to your brother? " "Yes" "Does that mean your brother turned into you at some point? "

[@BrahmsLiszt]

I have a suspicion he may well be descended from his cousins

[@C3rdito]

His older brother must be his father. For he kissed her, his own sister..

[@gowdsake7103]

Their sheer ignorance is shocking

[@cassandrahefton1482]

This guy is trolling you man. He's a very sophisticated troll. Took me a little bit to catch on to him. When he reversed his point he revealed himself.

[@Gabriel_Cook]

Scientific Theory "A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws. A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law. Both theories and laws could potentially be falsified by countervailing evidence. Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, *theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.* However, in science, theories are different from facts even when they are well supported. For example, *evolution is both a theory and a fact."* -Wiki^

[@magnuscolable]

This dude employs common tactics of "debate" to appear reasonable and honest but is actually approaching the discussion with the intent to hide his beliefs, answers every question dishonestly, changes opinions halfway through, contradicts himself just to try to obfuscate the point. All this is because he knows that his argument is weak, but the idea isn't to prove the strength of his argument its to try to discredit and frustrate his interlocutor. By being a dishonest interlocutor who's "being reasonable" and frustrating and angering his opponents he is able to strawman by proxy, the reasoned logical argument is defeated by their own emotions. People who do this are only worthy of derision, this kind of behavior should not be welcome is arenas if discussion.

[@ShMokou]

Every human was "unicellular organism" at some point. It's called Zygote.

[@displacegamer1379]

2:46 I wish I could be a fly in the wall in his brain. I just wanted to know what he heard, how his brain processed what he heard to get to the response that he just gave. This is so fascinating. You can explain it to them and then only a few moments later they forget the whole explanation that they just heard.

[@mojomusica]

It's the cognitive dissonance syndrome, they are confronted with the fact they hold two totally opposing views at the same time . He has to accept we are genetically related to everything and then deny that means we were not created, but evolved, as everything else is. That is why he simply cannot make the obvious conclusion when presented with the evidence. Agree with everything Peterson says until the last step because of his belief, dismissing the evidence he agreed with up till then.

[@neildiamonddegrassegotyoass]

Jeeeeeesus, that was rough.. 🤦‍♂️

[@SchiwiM]

it's like these callers don't even listen, it's embarrassing

[@louseveryann2181]

They don't. That's the whole point of Atheists videos. To expose their dishonesty.

[@EricusXIV]

Eric did great here. The explanations were brilliant and the outburst completely justified. The guest was obviously extremely ignorant and proud. Once he understood he was wrong - I definitely think he did - he just became the most dishonest interlocutor ever.

[@lemongavine]

This is pure comedy gold

[@sanjeevgig8918]

The moment a theist says "Evolution is a theory" you should ask them to learn how Science works and save yourself half an hour of your life. . LOLZ

[@nio804]

I think he was trying to claim that people being "related" actually means that they are made from the same materials using the "same" blueprint. He was trying to deny the need for shared ancestry, the implication being that it's intelligent design by a creator.

[@almightydiplodocus8025]

The last time I saw my grandfather he said "Gravity is only a theory!" And then he jumped off the roof. Never saw him again after that.

[@lubrew5862]

Even one of the largest apologists organizations, Answers in Genesis, has articles stating people need to stop using the argument. They are one of the largest science denying organizations and even they know the argument makes them look bad.

[@thedrizzle21]

BLITZ'S voice was a pleasant surprise

[@garrettbrown775]

I encountered someone doing the exact same thing in a youtube comment. He kept repeating that related isnt the same as descending from that organism. I continued telling him until the very end that no one is claiming that. Im not sure how they are so confused about the meaning of the word "related".

[@celiand2618]

I had that with someone getting phlogiston concept from the philosophers reinterpreted, in his mind, as the phlogistic theory to put it in the field of science and who dubbed what was a natural philosopher (a term that was also applied later on by Newton on himself) as a scientist. All that because he could not process that around the 19th century, natural sciences divorced from natural philosophy and began to revise all its premices (process still going on). I had to call him a dishonnest mockery of a human being to make him stop strawmaning, equivocating, commiting anachronisms and basically doing rhetorics... Awful, it could have been a very interesting discussion. We never got to discuss if there was any validity behind the metaphysical idea of ontological principles. I end up not even being sure that the example of phlogiston as a case of a failure of hierarchical ontological principle.

[@celiand2618]

For humans and chimps at least I often at least manage to explain that the gramps of humans and chimps is called a proconsul.

[@garrettbrown775]

@@celiand2618 I'm not big on philosophy, so you lost me there but I'll probably read up on it. I couldn't even get the guy I was talking to understand that humans are categorically 'apes'. Despite the fact that he accepted evolution, he kept making the claim that we evolved out of the clade.

[@celiand2618]

@@garrettbrown775 For humans being apes, just take Aron Ra's speech where he simply quote what makes an ape an ape... And his "so far, I've been describing people" line. Because when you give the definition of the ape clade, you ARE describing people.

[@celiand2618]

Also... "evolving out of the clade" would be a violation of the law of monophyly... We are very derived, sure... So what ? The feet of proconsul were closer in shape to ours than to chimps'. They are as derived as we are, considering they took the "back to the tree" route. We got biiiig brains, they got super prehensile feet, neither present in proconsul.

[@kevinsayes]

Next level tactics. Reverse carded your ass 😂 a few times. Your neighbors probably have questions for you too haha

[@MileHighInTheSky]

I’m confused where the disconnect is. You don’t come from your cousin. You come from your grandparents. But you’re related to your cousin through that common ancestor. But you’re not your cousin, and you’re not your grandparents. Why is this simple concept so fucking difficult for these people to understand?

[@Nekotaku_TV]

It doesn't matter, the guy isn't capable of thinking beyond instinct.

[@celiand2618]

It is simple to understand, it's just they don't want to.

[@nicholasbutner3039]

There was no need to ask this guy if he had cousins. It's clear they gave birth to him.

[@cobalt4045]

This is a test. Had this been an actual demonstration of Creationism, you would have been compelled to take it into consideration. It's just comical how I can readily grant throwing the consensus model out the door, and then, the apologist just squirms as they cannot show the evidence for their model at all.

[@theheinzification]

This was a troll and you stepped in his trap. LOL

[@tomroyca]

13:38 that's called deterministic. There are factors in the environment that cause mutations. Where mutation will happen is random. Why it happens is not random

[@doranku]

Im related to my sister, we dont look alike and one is not from the other. But we are related... Unless i was adopted and that makes sense sometimes.

[@ottomaddoxx5360]

FE Dora was definitely adopted.

[@doranku]

@@ottomaddoxx5360 we surely aren't related 😉

[@SGTSHOOTnMISS]

We all felt the anger you displayed in this video. Angry Peterson speaks for all of us.

[@zordsthegreat]

19:45 "unbelievable" literally made me laugh out loud. I can't believe he forced Peterson to defend a straw man point after fully explaining the point to then use Peterson's point as a gotcha 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💀

[@doofusrick5998]

That thumbnail belongs in a museum

[@CeezGeez]

18:24 LOLOLOL

[@BaronVonQuiply]

See, the thing about Theory.. I never did find out why they dropped _Of A Dead Man_ from the band name. I should go look that up (I did, nothing exciting).

[@KhordLizardMage]

Stupid is a s Stupid does......

[@nostrum6410]

9:00 hes talking about evolution and language barrier aside hes basically correct

[@Unicorn-Black]

I think he is really related to that rock he mentioned..

[@vonwux]

It's not proper science denial if you don't spend ages trying to argue semantics of specific words that don't really make any difference to the topic

[@IgnoranceBegetsConfidence]

The dishonesty of religious people are expected

[@deadISgawd]

kids - paste & crayons are not food

[@louseveryann2181]

Or paint.

[@Richardj410]

What the hell is happening. He doesn't understand or just doesn't want to.

[@marknelson4615]

I think I am going to try saying: Your religion believes that 500 years ago a giant eagle gave birth to a man who could fly, and if we believe in him, we will grow wings and be able to go to Valhalla. This is what happens when you let an ignoramus define terms.

[@marknelson4615]

And that 6th commandment of yours, the one that you can’t have chocolate….

[@wackman9362]

dad plz ur scaring me

[@ksbrst2010]

I think the basic problem is somethi g else. Mendel it is thought in schools with 2 or at max three different possibolities. In reality this nearly never happens, normaly 30 to 60 different genes inzeract and every combination gives a possible result. So you dont have two values but more gradual results and the bugs can become darker or lighter in coloration. So two different random mutations in different genes can mutate and there are more gradual changes rhT simply add up.. These mechanisms are often enough not really understood.

[@CalinoFG]

Eric, did you saw the documantation about how the Neandethal might be extinct? On „Curiosity“! Verry fascinating!

[@louseveryann2181]

"did" "saw" You didn't major in English, did you? A Dutch person.

[@EricBurns1]

I'm in the process of applying for teaching positions in physics and one school I applied for was a Christian school. I looked up their curriculum today and they teach YEC. Not responding to them if they reach out.

[@Yadsguus]

I was at this livestream🤘

[@martin2289]

It's frustrating listening to people like this arguing in bad faith over things they don't understand and stubbornly don't want to.

[@michaelbell3181]

There's nothing eternal, and I'm not even a nihilist

[@ElvisPresleyTouchedMe]

He was actually doing pretty well up until those last few minutes. ID supporters/evolution deniers can bring up some interesting thinkers (not saying they’re right/good), but then in the last few minutes he basically admitted his cousins were his parents…which 😒

[@LegendGamer-dj8om]

I LOVE U

[@frostjune6072]

i dont know what nebulas requirements are but could you get on there? paying 5 a month for all the creators i want to support would quickly reach multiple hundreds

[@planetpeterson2824]

The creators on Nebula have entire teams producing TV-quality videos. They have editors, script writers, artists, and more. I just rely on my wits and use iMovie.

[@still_functional]

and we love u for it ♡

[@gowdsake7103]

I think that as well

[@rasiriusmgmt5854]

I believe in evolution, it makes sense to me everything is special, living or not, and their relation to hydrogen and or carbon

[@catelynh1020]

"What does it mean to be related?" "We share genetics" (ding ding, huzzah, a surprisingly good answer) A little later "Well, i am also related to a rock because we are both on the planet" (gnid gnid, taking back those dings) You gotta be really reaching if you think you're genetically related to a rock

[@celiand2618]

Genetically gonna be difficult, but chemically, definitely. Now if that's the standard, needing salt and iron makes the personn a rock. That's Hovind level of refusing to understand.

[@Weirdaman]

Excellent trolling.

[@johntrip07]

Derp!

[@celiand2618]

"I don't have a cousin climbing trees and eating bananas." Well good sir I am sorry your family encourages neither healthy outdoor activities nor diets. Also banana trees are not trees. But bananas are a great example on how accelerated selection (aka artificial selection) can speed up the change of the frequency in a population of otherwise randomly appearing mutations. For his family's activities, cherry picking maybe ?

[@whatwecalllife7034]

So the caller asks if humans were ever unicellular and ironically that's exactly how we start off during conception. Anyway, for any theists reading this comment that don't accept evolutionary theory, people colloquially use the term theory to mean an untested, perhaps even assumed, explanation of the relevant facts. In science, theory means the same thing EXCEPT that it is rigorously tested. Scientists from everywhere perform their own tests and repeat the tests of others in order to poke holes in the theory being proposed until they can't. Evolutionary theory explains the facts in regards to biological evolution. In the same way that atomic theory or gravitational theory explains their relative facts. No theory is airtight and is always subject to revision, however this does not necessarily mean that the entire theory will be thrown out.

[@louseveryann2181]

A "theory" is not a fact, like how a fire truck is not a fire...

[@mattg5852]

You know, this guy keeps using words I don’t think he knows what they mean

[@russellmyers934]

OK, this is literally the problem with the Religious Mindset: EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENS EVERYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE IS THE RESULT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE BY A MIND. That's it. This guy absolutely CANNOT get past the idea that some person HAS to be directing everything or nothing would ever happen. It's infuriating.

[@rexomnipotentus387]

Is the revenue you get from KZbin Premium subscribers also reduced by KZbin?

[@monodescarado]

The issue in the latter quarter was that he was strawmanning evolution to mock science, but I think you mistook that for his own beliefs. He thinks that scientists think humans came from mosquitos, but he doesn’t believe that. It kind of felt like you were both arguing for the same definition of ‘related’ thinking the other was contradicting themselves.

[@louseveryann2181]

But don't you know Eric, that you are in fact talking to an Elitist "muslim" Ubermensch, AKA a person who knows everything better and is better than everyone... Pure logic. I mean, it even says 'Elitist "muslim" Ubermensch'. Therefore they are automatically better.

[@jme92685]

8:10

[@Leah-vr7di]

I struggled to understand this man

[@nohandlemebruh]

You share your argument style with Nathan Oakley

[@stringtheorysucks]

Nathan Oakley loves him mute button, I have never seen Planet Peterson use the mute button as much as Oakley

[@michaelbell3181]

Damn theists commercials

[@ManicPandaz]

There was only one person over generalizing and that person was not Peterson… just wow

[@michaelmay5453]

Well, no. The way we form a scientific theory is that we have an idea and from that we form a hypothesis, then we test it and along the way we either collect a series of facts to support the hypothesis or it becomes nothing. We then have others test the process to ensure that what we found to be correct in both process and outcome, this is called peer review and this never really ends. So a scientific theory isn't a collection of hypotheses, it's a collection of facts that support the theory (or rather it supports the hypothesis which is how it becomes a scientific theory) Just amassing hypotheses which is the non-evidenced stage of the process would make no sense. Also, mutations ARE random but natural selection ISN'T, I don't know why you get stuck on random mutation (which is what the scientific theory of evolution states occurs) but it's not a hill to die on because that is just wrong. It also feels like you're getting halfway into gene expression (active genes) which is another field called epigenetics (my most recent speciality and extremely interesting but it has nothing what so ever to do with evolution which is full genomic progression). It's hard to explain it in a comment but basically genes can be active or inactive and that is why you can have two identical twins with different hair colour or completely different facial structure. This is environmental factors affecting the egg cells, spermatozoa and it happens before conception AND at the time of conception. One could possibly say that Natural Selection is random as well as it depends on place and the environment there at any given time, it's not directed so it is random. I'd make that argument but then we'd get into a discussion of what random means and the way I see it is that it means "non-directed" not "without purpose". My qualifications are that I'm a Doctor of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and I've worked in the field of genetic evolution for 25+ years, I was also part of the HGP from beginning to end. You are not wrong on the big picture but you managed to get almost everything to get there wrong.

[@planetpeterson2824]

I said it's a collection of proven hypotheses that converge on a single broad explanation

[@michaelmay5453]

@@planetpeterson2824 Which is wrong. It's a single hypothesis and it will never be "proven" because we do not deal in proof, we are not mathematicians nor are we beverage alcohol. :P I do find it kind of ... disappointing that you apparently didn't read what I wrote because if you had, your reply makes no sense. I mean, we can have this discussion but this is what I did for a living for 25+ years and I'm fairly sure that you have never been involved in any of these processes.

[@planetpeterson2824]

@@michaelmay5453 buddy I don’t know what to tell you. You’re saying scientific theories are built of scientific facts, but those facts don’t come about by experiments that confirm certain hypotheses. That makes zero sense. How do we know that there is a nucleus? Because the experiments confirmed that there’s a small localized positive region instead of the plum pudding model. That and other experiments are how we developed atomic theory. If you’re going to say it’s not about experiments that test hypothesis then you’re either saying the scientific method doesn’t exist or has no role in how we collect scientific facts.

[@stuartolive3600]

You should explain to them why a scientific theory is different from the everyday defining of theory

[@doely8825]

Peterson has done this countless times, as have countless others. Theists aren’t able to accept this because it means they would have to accept evolution and therfore throw their belief into question

[@stuartolive3600]

@doely8825 He didn't do it in this case though. All it takes is a simple question of "do you understand that a scientific theory doesn't have the same definition as the everyday usage?"

[@HisZotness]

Even if you explain it to them, their egos go all Shields Up in order to avoid meltdown.

[@Nekotaku_TV]

He did...

[@stuartolive3600]

@Nekotaku_TV Not in the specific way of describing the difference between a scientific theory and the everyday usage which is the point they get wrong.

[@z08840]

Peterson is wrong here - mutations are random - i.e. all of them one way or another product of quantum processes - which are truly random.

[@Ploskkky]

These conversations are like torture. I should stop watching. I can not stand these foolish theistic fantasists. It is almost unbearable.

[@somersetcace1]

The thing is, if you're just defending evolution from misinformation, then cool, but don't let it be a red herring in the debate over the existence of gods. It wouldn't matter if Evolution was demonstrated false, it would in no way be evidence of a god. It's a distraction. A way to get you on the defense over something irrelevant.

[@NewNecro]

Not if you're told Atheism is created by evolutionists who use "Origins of species" as their sacred scripture with Darwin as their government-worshipping prophet. You can't argue logic in a debate with someone whose beliefs are founded on layers of fallacies.

[@crimm2465]

​@@NewNecroYep, fractal wrongness. Or "epistemic polarization" if you wanna sound fancy.

[@MaximusSilentium-cl1ff]

do you believe in the law of gravity? why, its only a law. ITS NOT EVEN A THEORY. a theory contains multipe laws. a theory is a draw full of laws. once you know that you will still say, "its only a theory". WHY?????????????????????????????????????????

[@thedeebo410]

Wow, this guy was an absolute brainlet.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Yeah but, His cousin doesn't swing from trees.Therefore evolution has failed. Check mate atheists.

[@kaweckipiotr]

Hes to slow …

[@ribo2007]

Typical Muslim

[@DukeAB-re5cy]

I love top watch these videos, but Peterson, dude, this is harmful to your health.

[@anlacombe]

last week i watched the film "My Uncle Was A Gorilla" what fancy answer does Peterson have to prove that movie was wrong

[@dwightfitch3120]

What do u mean by “fancy answer”?

[@louseveryann2181]

That you like watching dumb movies.

[@russellmyers934]

JFC this guy is like talking to a BRICK WALL.

[@powercheese2580]

Don't forget, you mixed them Peterson. This seems a little unfair, there seems to be a language barrier. Find someone who can speak to him in his native tongue. He should be allowed to say stupid shit in what ever language is most comfortable for him.

[@nikobaehr3638]

I'm fairly sure what he meant by that was "my script says that you should say this, but Peterson said the opposite"

[@Nekotaku_TV]

It was not a language barrier.

[@powercheese2580]

@@Nekotaku_TV yeah I know, he was just an idiot.

[@Yadsguus]

8:10