Shortest Scientist vs Creationist debate ever.

[@AW-sx8hm]

I think this is actually a really tall scientist. He's not standing on the edge of the canyon, he's standing on the bottom.

[@js_musicmedia8981]

Laughed out loud, nice

[@ianmcelmurry2882]

Underrated comment.

[@rolls_8798]

explain that, atheists!

[@favouritemoon4133]

Have you ever seen 'Father Ted'? He explained it pretty much the same way to Father Dougal [ff to about 35 secs if you're short of time] kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXe3mJ6fl9Fqerc

[@ratshy2359]

People can't even write a video title properly these days

[@SenthilKumar-qq5te]

"Shortest Scientist vs Creationist debate ever." Disappointing, I was expecting a 2 or 3 foot tall Scientist.

[@liondoor4554]

😆😂🤣

[@01Sunshine234]

What were you expecting they'd drag a leprechaun out of the woods to give a Harvard education?

[@nomadsteve5297]

And that is exactly what you got

[@Jo__o]

You, my man, made my day.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodsa9058]

@@01Sunshine234 Exactly. This guy gets it.

[@squeaky1963]

My God. Imagine if the tallest scientist and creationist had a debate

[@svalbard01]

Username checks out.

[@calebleach7988]

Take my upvote and leave

[@georockmann7113]

Bruh I just understood it

[@christopherhall5361]

this comment would only be better if upvotes stopped at 666

[@robot7759]

😁👍

[@deebugger]

I met a microbiologist today, he was much larger than I expected..

[@ethanethanethawhipwhorp]

😐

[@gametalk3149]

Makes me wonder where all the macrobiologists are

[@SentientOrang]

@@ethanethanethawhipwhorpFuck you, it was good.

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

Classic

[@ballasog]

He had only competed 0.0001 % of the degree requirements; that's why he was a microbiologist.

[@arkay238]

I was at the Grand Canyon last may. They’re still just standing there.

[@ThermaL-ty7bw]

you didn't see jesus moving some dirt around then ? or his daddy , laying down dinosaur bones everywhere ? or was that Mr. Satan , i can't keep up with all the nonsense these religious people throw out in to the world ... should stop watching these clips and videos , cause they piss me the F off , just can't help myself ignorant hopeless people , that couldn't tie their own freaking shoes , if it wasn't written down as a decree in that horrible atrocious immoral ''book'' they call the bible ... absolute idiots with no life to speak off LIFE is the ''guide TO life'' , not some antiquated pieces of parchment with stories older then 11.000+ years , that have absolutely nothing to do with people of this day and age ... but they just keep on pushing their views on the world and tell you ... you're going to hell ... f*ck em ... and f*ck their ''god'' that guy is a pervert and a predator in MY book , nothing else

[@ikhuemoseokojie911]

@@ThermaL-ty7bw Bruh I'm not going to defend the Bible cause your mind is already closed. All I'm going to say is that the Bible has everything to do with the day and age. Just like the constitution tells us how to live out our lives so does the Bible. Because the truth isn't subjective it's objective

[@billibilliyou]

@@ikhuemoseokojie911 people forget all the atrocities that have been done in the name of religion and of trying to force one's beliefs onto others; colonialism, conversion therapy for homosexuals, the complete destruction of cultures, major wars and maybe bllions of deaths all throughout history, the loss of identity and free thought for many individuals. Organized thought keeps people seperate and stop us from actually finding common ground. Religion tells one truth and conceals many others.I left Christianity after the first 20 years of my life and never looked back.

[@AndrewVasirov]

I am sure there will be statues depicting this impressive memorable event there.

[@MTG776]

Haha, that made me really laugh loud...

[@nicholasmcadams8041]

Thats a bold statement to say to a creationist when your standing near the edge of the Grand Canyon

[@annvik3772]

😂😂😂

[@stephanesmith9391]

Like a boss👍!

[@bencrawshaw1227]

Yeah I reckon they can be potentially dangerous.

[@David-se5ph]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@sen7826]

We never did see what happened next

[@kristofgriffin384]

"No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot." - Mark Twain.

[@yaruqadishi8326]

Ditto

[@src3360]

In the words of a creationist.... Amen 🙏🏻🤣

[@bubbie3533]

Me scrolling through the comments looking for someone to quote Mark Twain. BRUTAL!!!! 😂😂😂😂

[@reisekeller6859]

I LOVE that quote! Mark Twain is still my favorite author.

[@thereaction18]

The geologist must be an idiot. Why should he waste his time considering evidence from people he disagrees with when it's so easy to just casually dismiss them categorically like a complete bigot, since evidence will never convince him anyway?

[@Green.Country.Agroforestry]

Clickbait. They were all of normal height.

[@jamminoutrexan5474]

Yeah, I opened this video in a tab along with several other videos from my homepage, at first hoping for a short scientist to debate. Took me longer than it should've to realize the title's intended meaning 😂

[@Letheansound]

camera tricks you ever see the making of the lord of the rings movies? they're doing reverse hobbit shots here to make them seem taller

[@somedonkus5215]

We can agree, however, that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell

[@aaronmtzs1]

I don't know but I have the feeling that you like it's ok to be smart

[@corniel657]

Damn straight

[@GHOSTDOG637]

ATP baby!

[@chuck7048]

I remember my Bio teacher saying that that’s not specific enough so F’s all around

[@joelr1112]

Is mitochondria a dinosaur that wrote the bible?

[@alexc773]

Clicked on this hoping the conversation would end with someone getting thrown into the Grand Canyon.... disappointment.

[@AverageAlien]

the irish twat

[@tolorolo6573]

Average Alien English fucker

[@apocalypseap]

***** So do you, so how are you different except that you believe in unsubstantiated bullshit?

[@apocalypseap]

***** You should probably seek psychiatric therapy. Persuasion is not a requirement in science. You accept it, or you don't. Science doesn't start with an absurd assumption; it's about looking at the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion based on that evidence, not pre-conceived bullshit. You might as well believe in invisible pink unicorns or something. At least you'd be a more creative insane person, then.

[@apocalypseap]

***** Let me ask you a question you've probably never thought about: if god exists at all (nevermind your god), what did god make the universe out of? :^)

[@danemiller4852]

This may be one of the funniest moments in grand canyon history

[@huskydogg7536]

top 10 at least

[@ZringMalti]

All 5-6 million years of its history!

[@Cybernaut551]

@@ZringMalti Correctly stated.

[@Chipotleadvisory]

In the video if you listen closely you can actually here the Canyon laughing at the creationist.

[@j.dragon651]

you weren't there when I took my wife there.

[@imogen1]

Total clickbait. That scientist is mega tall to be standing in the canyon and still level with those guys on the rim.

[@albertnielsen1154]

Surprise! Surprise! If you don't use scientific methods, you aren't a scientist.

[@anoopashok4613]

ur right

[@Graeme_Lastname]

And if you're not a moron then you're not a creationist. ;)

[@tjseries3057]

@@Graeme_Lastname horrible joke

[@Graeme_Lastname]

@@tjseries3057 Yes indeed. Totally horrible. Unfortunately, not a joke, just a fact. ;)

[@paulcoy9060]

I'm a NASCAR driver. Although I don't drive a suped-up car. And I don't drive on a licensed NASCAR track. And my name doesn't appear on any official NASCAR employment records, but I'm still a NASCAR driver. And I'm a Young Earth Scientist.

[@kuraibaka9771]

I don't know why I thought reading this comment section would be a good idea.

[@Horny_Fruit_Flies]

Why not. I'm having a very good time down here.

[@simanolastname2399]

Not sure if it was a good or a bad idea. Either way I’m kinda enjoying it.

[@ronaldolson6553]

Well, we all enjoy a good train wreck don't we?

[@spac18]

Because you like to read people expressing their stupid opinions

[@ElZamo92]

Funniest shit I’ve ever seen.

[@jic1]

This is actually probably the best scientist vs creationist debate ever, because it acknowledges the fundamental problem: if you can't even agree on basic premises, you can't actually have a debate to start with. At best, you just talk at each other forever, with neither side conceding any significant points to the other, and both declaring victory at the end.

[@pepsusser]

This is why almost every debate we see is pointless. People pretend to be debating while they cant even agree on basic initial definitions that would be required to make proper arguments.

[@OrbObserver]

Which is why the scientific method exists to begin with. If the person you are arguing with can't even acknowledge objective, observable, reproducable evidence they are no more worth talking to than a farm animal.

[@onionsans]

​@@OrbObserverAnd if they can't think outside the box of naturalism they're not worth taking to either

[@lieslceleste3395]

@@onionsansFor example, miracles by deities ? Fairies? Simulacrum? How is anything other than naturalism falsifiable?

[@onionsans]

@@lieslceleste3395 By proof? God can't contradict himself, so if you find God contradicting himself then you have proof. It's not like you can't prove supernatural things wrong, it's just that you have to think about what it is you're trying to disprove rather than what you know about everything else. Very simple stuff there.

[@dirtylemon3379]

I was at the Grand Canyon last month. That guy is still standing there trying to think of a snappy comeback.

[@jjmachtej3387]

Him today in the shower “damn, I should’ve said...”

[@tomwanders6022]

No there is nothing he should have said, this was perfectly fine. If you have listened to to many creationists you know why, because it hurts, how bad those arguments are.

[@hlcepeda]

... and while enjoying the hot water made possible by the work of inventors, scientists, and engineers.

[@tomwanders6022]

@Lactose Intolerant Cow I am an atheist lol. I think you thought I said that the scientist arguements would be bad, I meant the creationist ones.

[@aspitube2515]

@@tomwanders6022 according to the Bible Earth already existed and it was only water in it. Soo... yes, BRUH

[@aspitube2515]

@Lactose Intolerant Cow the big bang doesn't explain time and sound, surely there's a God who created those things and dimensions

[@joshuahoover6841]

I'm smacking myself in the head for how long it took me to get why everybody's talking about the geologists height.

[@opabinnier]

Hi. Me too! I guess some folk like us are just s bit more serene. Nice to meet ya!

[@redcandi01]

I'm confused, can you explain🤷🏾‍♀️

[@joshuahoover6841]

@@redcandi01 the name of the clip is "the shortest scientist versus creationist debate ever." If you take it literally, it means the shortest scientist versus a creationist debate. I read it as how it was supposed to be and then started reading the comments, LOL and wondered what the heck I was missing 😂

[@redcandi01]

@@joshuahoover6841 oooooooooo hahahaha 😅👍🏽 ...thanks 💁🏾‍♀️😂

[@natetronn]

Don't be so short with yourself.

[@A82B]

They haven’t moved from that spot to this very day.

[@terra_727]

The world's longest awkward silence moment. Guinness confirmed 👍

[@LadyOfTheEdits]

Wow XD 😂😂

[@timestamp2525]

Are they still there? Their legs must hurt

[@whitebloodcell9158]

They still there

[@Kez-The-Pez]

fifth comment

[@HowardThompson-ux7kf]

"But you are ignoring the explanations that aren't supported by reality. "

[@lowlygrinder2977]

Cause you say so? Everytime idiots like you say dumb things like this to people like John Lennox, they always school you and send you running away crying and whining, they do that to your mentors too in debates.

[@zoevalentiae2391]

I feel like I've been watching this at 0.00001x speed for the past 20 years

[@TheCopelandr]

I totally know what you mean.

[@apsarator]

nice way of putting it :)

[@agent-sz2qj]

i don't get it

[@TheAwkwardGuy]

he's saying that this 1 video showed all the other videos he has seen in a very short amount of time. aka - the past videos he saw were like....20 min/1hour long debates, while this one took less than a minute.

[@TheAwkwardGuy]

Uh...not long at all...? What does that have to do with what I'm saying?

[@mrloop1530]

I don't know. Therefore God. End of discussion. Edit: For those few who didn't catch the sarcasm: It sums up the god of the gaps arguments - a special case of an argument from ignorance.

[@konnosx1213]

Creationist: Sea is wet... Bible said sea is wet.. Therefore God Creationist: Birds fly.. Therefore God Creationist: My dog... Therefore God Creationist: Science... Therefore Satan

[@konnosx1213]

@Patrick McCarthy This comment... Therefore God

[@youngblocka8128]

God hides in the cracks in the monolith of scientific understanding

[@JohnKobaRuddy]

young BLOCKA is love to believe but whether people like this fact or not the original bible was the Jewish Torah then it was edited then Jesus popped up then it was added to then edited or bits of tablets went missing then king James had his own version that’s used today. In what way can that possibly be the word of god, an edited abridged directories cut with added bonus scenes?!

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

God can't be detected or demonstrated to exist. Making claims about how you think that God invented science is a completely baseless assertion.

[@Greencarnation1000]

I misread this. I was expecting a midget scientist. I'm disappointed.

[@barnabyaprobert5159]

"Midget Scientist!" Next, on TLC!

[@samramos310]

Same here 😂

[@mannyurdaneta7883]

You are a pioneer

[@dfghj241]

who's to say he isn't the shortest scientist!? Are you assuming naturalism?

[@dennman37]

hahaha

[@lilredcutie0]

“Well, some scientists disagree!” Is such a dumb, tired argument. You can get a scientist somewhere who thinks dragons are real if you look hard enough. Too funny!

[@derpderpus6075]

I found a Scientist who studies these things called "Komodo dragons."

[@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я]

@@derpderpus6075 well, that scientist sure thinks they are real, so the argument stands!

[@derpderpus6075]

@@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я Komodo Dragons are so real that they even hunt humans.

[@derpderpus6075]

@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я It's almost like you never heard of this Class of Animals called "Reptiles."

[@recursiveslacker7730]

“Have you heard what the creationists have to say?” “Yeah but I said scientists tho”

[@tyrionlannister9273]

🤣🤬😂😆🤭✅🖖

[@65firered]

*Stare*

[@tyrionlannister9273]

@@cloudycrisps7290 You are aware that the mechanism of " creation science " is magic/incantations. Being that it was spoken, that makes it just that. But there's a problem with that. There was no air before this act. Nor did the non-corporeal entity have a mouth from which to speak. No vocal chords or lungs. None of the things needed for speech was in place before the incantation was used. So, how did that work? More magic? Creation was also put up against evolutionary processes in court. The ruling is why evolution is taught in schools and creation isn't, accept those schools that indoctrinates children into the cult before they can think for themselves. Calling it science doesn't make it science. And if this religious crap was real there wouldn't be any need for apologist's. There would be no holes or slack to pull it it were real and not mere fantasy. Creation Science, what a laugh.

[@cloudycrisps7290]

@@tyrionlannister9273 okay, First of the Bible said humanity was made in Gods own image therefore it can be assumed that they have a mouth. Second, Just because a court has a certain ruling does not make it true or the best. Other wise explain why innocent people are convicted and guilty are set free. What may seem right is not always the case. And finally Evolution also has apologists, people who keep finding evidence and using it to support their views. However I do agree that calling something science does not make it science, so tell me, if evolution is classified as a theory why do we teach it as scientific fact? Just because we can use evidence to point at it? You can do that with the creationist viewpoint as well. Perhaps it would be better if these theories were taught separately from factual science so we can more accurately test them. If creation science really was this laugh as you say, then surely you have all the answers to make this belief obsolete? Explain to me them how life could arise from non living Matter and then proceed to never do it again on this planet. Explain the origins of human morality, of Logic, explain consciousness. The Truth is neither of us have all the answers therefore neither side should be taken as more than an opinion with a spew of evidence at the table trying to make it all fit. It is also impossible to simply take information and just “find the results” because there will always be bias. A creationist will use it to point to God and a non-creationist will use it to point towards Not God. Just finding evidence is not what you are doing at all. Everyone is DELIBERATELY using the evidence to support their view.

[@tyrionlannister9273]

@@cloudycrisps7290 Evidence points only one way. Evolution doesn't have apologist's. And the Torah, the old testament, doesn't say that man was made in the image of god. It says that humans were re-created in the image of the gods, Elohim is a pluralism and also includes female. And it also says that Jehovah sits in the seat of judge amongst the gods. So the text clearly states a plurality. And about this assumption. Why would a being living in null space, devoid of everything have need of a mouth? There's nothing to eat, nothing to speak upon because sound travels on the particles of gas in waves to the ear that has bones in it that rattle and send the signals to the brain to be deciphered... The people that wrote the religious texts literally knew nothing and assumed everything. That's why it's rife with inconsistentancies and nonsensical ideas. Plants were created before the sun. The sun and moon exist inside of the dome above the flat earth and are the same size. There's water outside the dome. Snakes and donkey talk. Eating fruit is a crime that humans are guilty of even though they didn't even eat the fruit themselves. Then later, god takes human form. To be a sacrifice of itself to itself to appease itself for rules it made up in the first place. From a scenario it made. It also placed the talking snake in the garden. What kind of idiot thinks this makes sense? You do.

[@counterculture10]

"Oh, I read them. I don't count them as scientists." "Ah, OK!" Crickets.

[@mnn1265]

Crickets is the sound inside the head of someone so stubborn that they can't see the obvious flaws of creationism... that's crickets.

[@ZealotOfNothing]

​@@mnn1265You interrupted the sound of nature to make such a silly comment? God forgive you.

[@mnn1265]

@@ZealotOfNothing Which god? There are so many to choose from.

[@AlinivarsPainting]

​@@mnn1265 Only one lived on Earth.

[@mnn1265]

@@AlinivarsPainting OH, so Zeus! Oh, wait, Mohammad? Could be Isis? Hmmm, again so many to choose from.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

I can't believe we're still having these kinds of "debates" in this century...

[@bullymaguire2061]

Don't worry. I met a guy who believed Men and Women have a different number of ribs.

[@professionalbozo4396]

Suboptimal Constructor ribs are Zionist new world order Kabal propaganda wake up you sheeple

[@pompeyhater9973]

Luftwaffe 2 Electric Bogaloo I have awoken

[@professionalbozo4396]

Chad Chadington my third eye is open to the spiritual chakra

[@Cosmic-Spanner]

Certain people worship their own interests and dress them up as devotion to a noble, higher cause. We will always have these debates as long as weak-minded, self-obsessed people want to spread their fears and beliefs.

[@daxramdac7194]

Creationists are not scientists though. Now there ARE scientists who are religious, but their religious views dont influence their work if they do the science correctly.

[@LaylaBushee]

Newton, Pasteur, and many other brilliant scientists were and are creationists. The scientific method was created by Francis Bacon, a creationist scientist.

[@EiferBrennan]

​@LaylaBusheeno none of those people were creationists. They may or may not have believed in God but they did not believe in creationism because creationism didn't exist then.

[@daxramdac7194]

@LaylaBushee I'm talking about creationists who completely deny basic scientific facts and findings. I'm not talking about scientists who do science correctly and produce good results, who just happen to be Jewish, or Muslim or Christian or Hindu, whatever. Leonard Euler was a devout Christian, when I say devout I mean he loved Jesus Christ, and he was about as Christian as you can imagine a man to be, or strives to be. He was also one of the GREATEST mathematicians in recorded history, top THREE at least. So yeah we're not saying religious belief is incompatible with a scientific pursuit, just that SOME people have a worldview, informed by their religious texts, that IS incompatible with science, such as believing the earth is flat because of some vague interpretation of a small verse, despite visual evidence to the contrary.

[@twstf8905]

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ---Voltaire 1765

[@jsmariani4180]

that's not the whole story though. Atrocities have been committed for lots of reasons, like bombing a ww2 factory that happens to be in a highly populated area (collateral damage) or bombing/shelling a city to make way for invading troops.

[@sunblaze8931]

TWSTF 8 Yes, that’s why I don’t believe in atheism. Such an absurdity has caused many atrocities.

[@Bubbles99718]

@@sunblaze8931 Atheism is not a belief. Best of luck moron

[@sunblaze8931]

Sean O Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

[@Bubbles99718]

@@sunblaze8931 It's an absence of belief in a deity. There's a difference there. I know, I know. There there Put on a lullaby vid. You'll be much better off

[@minhcena1681]

If god isn't real then who tangled my headphones? God: 1 Atheists: 0

[@liamdye3504]

I hope you're not being serious.

[@minhcena1681]

Liam Dye 1985: In 2017 we will have flying cars! 2017: *reads your comment*

[@TheHatchet2]

Liam, don't feed the trolls.

[@minhcena1681]

:(

[@reno9821]

Rob Hatch Because a joke these days can only be a troll wanting attention apparently.

[@davidhoffman6980]

Creationist: "You're assuming uniformitarianism." Me: "Should I assume the laws of physics change every now and then?"

[@elguapo2831]

Evolution seems to go against the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. Real science should always be questioned and tested. It's never set in stone.

[@davidhoffman6980]

@@elguapo2831 what is the law of thermodynamics?

[@davidhoffman6980]

@@elguapo2831 so when you said "the law of thermodynamics" you actually meant the second law. Unfortunately you're not only wrong about what the second law of thermodynamics says, you're also wrong about its application. The second law describes entropy in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system; it constantly receives energy from the sun. The Change in allele frequencies over time doesn't go against the second law of thermodynamics any more than the population increasing, you cleaning your room, or us building cities.

[@elguapo2831]

@iadatoroboto8427 You give them eyes yet they cannot see. Funny how the answers are staring everyone in their faces and they can't see it. Remember the story of the pea in the mattress? Now look at the canyon walls. 6,000 feet of flat strata layers, not including another 2,000 feet on the Grand Staircase. Each layer supposedly took millions of years to form, but there are no valleys, hills, roots, burrows, or a pea in-between them.

[@Saurophaganax1931]

t here are burrow fossils but they are produced by marine organisms because the grand canyon is an ancient dried seabed hence why it’s layers are relatively quite flat for miles across. I don’t know if you’ve ever looked ar photos of the ocean floor but its often very flat. Now you might try to argue that the presence of sea life is evidence of a flood, but there’s flaws in that claim. Number one, many of these marine animals left trackways on these respective layers .indicating that the layer was once the surface of the ground and solid enough for them to walk on. If it was all laid down at once in some catastrophic flood, we wouldn't be finding footprints laminated between the layers. You can’t leave trackways if you’ve been buried in a deluge after all. Number two, if it was rapidly carved by a flood, would we not see the destruction and debris of a flood? Ripped up trees and plant matter and the remains of terrestrial animals that got swept up, and drowned and buried in the flood? But no, that’s not what we see. We don't see chaos and destruction in the layers of the Grand Canyon. We thriving and orderly, undisturbed marine ecosystems with ancient arthropods skittering across a flat sea floor and generations after generations of mollusks preserved anchored to their life positions. All of this is demonstrable and available knowledge to anyone with enough curiosity to look it up. So don’t come at us with that “give them eyes yet they cannot see” nonsense. The people who are actually down in the canyon, studying it’s fossils and mapping its geology have put in the time and leg work to see things that you have purposely chosen to ignore and yet here you are with the nerve to stand here at your pulpit and claim that they’re the one’s who are blind. I would laugh at the irony if it was not so bleak.

[@bubbles8871]

If you don't use science as the base of your theories, you ain't a scientist.

[@onisgagan2481]

Dammit, he had a whole notebook of comebacks but he left it in the motel room...

[@kpax45]

He had no comeback whatsoever for that line. Checkmate!

[@monstertrucktennis]

In the drawer next to the Holy Bible???

[@Oysters176]

It is hard to win an argument with a tall person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a short person, they will just bring you down to their height and beat you with their experience.

[@hiq7137]

This made me chuckle

[@Oysters176]

@@hiq7137 How did you see that comment on the other chat?

[@hiq7137]

@@Oysters176 it’s the notification

[@XxxDIOxX]

Underrated comment

[@Shannara360]

As a short person, he's right. Check mate, tallists.

[@Tezorus]

Scientist : - Take a rock and some water. - Observe how many time it takes for half a milimeter to be eroded. - Use math to calculate the aproximatif age of the grand cayon based on actual observations of nature. Creationist : - "Wait, is he allowed to do that ?''

[@ImperialMasterRace]

I think they observed the rock at the grand canyon THAT IS STILL ERODING lmao

[@Tezorus]

@@ImperialMasterRace yeah, even simplier 😄

[@RobertLoeder]

Then try the same experiment with muddy sediment to simulate the runoff after a flood.

[@carportshenanigans5918]

@Robert Loeder no, no, no, you have to ignore the possibility of any cataclysmic events and ASSUME that the processes observed present day is how it happened from the beginning of time and forever after. There is a surprising amount of willful ignorance in the belief of a 14B year old cosmic oopsie-daisy.

[@heznz4586]

@@carportshenanigans5918 you can tell the difference between a cataclysmic event and a slow process. A flood that lasts a few days leaves different signs than a stream that flows for a thousand years. And then there's the nuclear chemistry, which is probably the best way to date things. It isn't that scientists ignore signs, the fact is that the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence is an old universe and an old earth.

[@codeblaze3]

I like how they both listened to each other and tried to understand each others beliefs and the justifications thereof.

[@MrWils25]

“Ah right. Okay.” Wins debates every time.

[@hexagonalawareness3584]

@Tel Aviv How does that make a difference?

[@apmgold]

Bollocks

[@brandonden795]

Check mate athiests

[@FrowningIke]

Or "Oh right yeah" as Father Dougal would say.

[@kingbadmovie]

@@FrowningIke Okay... for the last time: these toy cows are small. But the ones outside are far away. 😂

[@Szkarad156]

That scientinst doesn't seem to be that short. I'm sure there are shorter scientists than him.

[@williamcowen-breen1475]

Oh there are, I just don't count them as scientists

[@jordanker-fox]

William CowenBreen Just like how scientists don't count Pluto to be a planet.

[@krakdaus5442]

I thought the same thing when I read the title

[@kurohyuki5912]

gold

[@tomseidel3370]

Szkarad gold

[@philip1279]

I like it when people call naturalism an assumption. I was going to try a supernatural hypothesis but it turns out I couldn’t test it so I gave natural a try and it just kept working. Edit: I understand strictly speaking naturalism is an assumption. This is mainly about methodological naturalism which is the relevant one to the world of science. Philosophical naturalism is not really the concern here. In the pursuit of knowledge methodological naturalism is the only available tool.

[@iamlordstarbuilder5595]

This philosophy is called “provisional methodological naturalism” and is the kind of methodnat I subscribe to.

[@helvete_ingres4717]

I mean, you are literally describing naturalism as an assumption, 'natural' observations can be repeated and therefore tested. That's a reason to 'assume' naturalism - b/c it's practical for corroborating scientific theories

[@gregb6469]

Naturalism is an assumption, because it can not be proved. It assumes that there is no supernatural.

[@jeremiahnoar7504]

both are assumptions. One can't test whether or not all events are governed by physical laws. That would be necessary for naturalism to be more than an assumption.

[@jeremiahnoar7504]

@@helvete_ingres4717 the problem is that naturalism is the belief that "All" events are governed by natural laws. That's the part that can't be tested.

[@eirebhoy132]

When an Irish Protestant unionist meets logic.

[@NightRunner417]

Got a feeling it might take hundreds of millions of years for that guy to cement his comeback into something solid.

[@readhistory2023]

There's a canyon at the base of St Helens that was created in a couple of months that made geologists rethink how long it takes to create of a canyon. He's not ontop of the subject as he thinks he is.

[@tonycotto7106]

​@@readhistory2023 Did the geologists think that it could happen in a few days? If not, then the creationist "theory" is still bunk.

[@redneckhippiefreak]

@@readhistory2023 lol Creating a Canyon takes days..Creating the Bedrock and Stratified structure that the Canyon is Comprised of, Takes Millennia. Your critical thinking skills and application of relatable information in support of a perspective, needs improvement.

[@gunslingergirl2579]

@@redneckhippiefreak Said the "redneckhippiefreak". Hm.

[@nobleradical2158]

@@gunslingergirl2579 Said the "Gunslinger Girl". Hm.

[@Michaelsmith-kw4zp]

this is how long every "debate" with a creationist should last.

[@josecanusee218]

+Michael smith Yes, because we should silence all theories and notions that don't agree with our own. That's how we grow and learn. Acting like know it all pricks.

[@Michaelsmith-kw4zp]

Jose Canusee when your right your right, no amount of debate will change the facts that religious nonsense has not been right on one scientific matter, or has met the burden of proof that is required for such extraordinary claims.

[@josecanusee218]

+Michael smith Well let's focus on this issue which I assume you are in agreement is the age of Earth. Let me re-post a comment I made on this video in hopes to get my point across. Forgive the laziness but I just don't feel like typing it all again." Is time not relative to the universal laws that the universe is expanding and speeding up? Therefore, as we exist and record our experience on the timeline, does our concept of time and it's relationship with history speed up? Meaning, A recorded year to man's concept of time 1 million years ago would be longer than it would in the current day. I am so amazed that scientist and the vast majority of the so called "intellectual" community are still theorizing time as a linear concept when it has been proven that it is cyclical in nature. My point is when someone says the Earth is thousands of years old or Millions of years old, they are both right and both wrong. The funniest part is we can only begin to imagine these things so instead of acting like we have all the answers, maybe we should stop being so arrogant and learn from one another." I mean even Albert Einstein considered his theories just that, theories. Sure, some are more predominantly rooted in fact and obvious as others are open to interpretation. Regardless of this, the reality is nobody knows without a shadow of a doubt anything so to silence debate and shun or criticize others for having opposing views is not only wrong but dangerous. I suggest you do some research on who is in charge of determining what scientific theories are considered facts throughout history and the damage that has done to the masses those theories were meant to use for control. I'm not saying your right, or I'm wrong, that's the point, we don't know. I'm not even a "creationist" as I think labeling oneself only puts yourself into a box were ideas and realizations go to die.

[@Michaelsmith-kw4zp]

Jose Canusee I disagree on nearly everything you say. A scientific theory is not just a theory, but the excepted explanation for a phenomenon, so I doubt very much that Einstein said that. Nobody claims to have all the answers, but religion has none, science gives us a good basis to work from. I will mock and shun any nonsense that religious indoctrination and brainwashing has claimed is true.

[@josecanusee218]

+Michael smith Then why is it called a theory? I mean how much more could you contradict yourself? So as far as your bogus definition of what theory means, how about we use the actual definition. the·o·ry ˈTHēərē/ noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Let me give you the definition for what a supposition is before you make up another meaning for that as well. sup·po·si·tion ˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/ noun an uncertain belief. So, I find it rather amusing that someone who is so certain of the how the mysteries of science and the universe work can't even grasp the reality of what simple definitions of words in the English language mean. UNCERTAIN, do you know what that means? As for Albert Einstein, I believe these quotes should solidify my argument "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." "We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.". Lastly, as far as being indoctrinated and brainwashed, what do you think is happened to our youth as we speak with the new religion man is dominating the poor and underprivileged masses with? Think about that.

[@urban_rural1256]

Honestly though? Kudos to the creationist guy for not just flying into a rage-fueled tangent at the end, they both had different views and they didn't clash with them any more than was necessary. EDIT: most of the replies have just ended up proving my point. Nice going, fellas.

[@maaderllin]

The problem is that one of them (the creationist) is clearly wrong, while the other (the scientist) is undoubtedly right.

[@jerm5]

Well we don't really see what happens beyond the 31-second mark

[@arcguardian]

@@maaderllin wrong about what exactly?

[@maaderllin]

@@arcguardian Wrong that creationism is a science. Science is a process. You gather evidence. You ponder on their meaning and elaborate an hypothesis on a question about the evidence: Why is this here, how did it get to this point, how does that work. With the question you ask, you gather more evidence to confirm your hypothesis, and if the evidence shows something that doesn't fit, you change your hypothesis until you arrive at a satisfying theory that explains the phenomenon you're studying. Creationists fail at this, because they start with their assessment (hypothesis) without any evidence and are unable to prove their axiom: That there is a creator. They give no satisfying evidence for it because the notion of a God is metaphysical, not physical and therefore not scientific. In science, when you disagree with someone else's findings, you must not only demonstrate that the evidence they gathered don't prove their theory, you must also elaborate a new hypothesis and test it. Creationists fail at both. They cherrypick or misrepresent scientists' evidence to try and disprove real science, wich they don't even succeed, and they fail to provide any evidence for their competing thesis. So, in a debate wether creationists are scientists or not, there is a clear right and wrong here: Creationists are not scientists. And I'll go further than that. I'm born and raised catholic. I don't agree with all of my original church's dogma, but I still believe in god. What I'm about to say will be controversial but here I come: Creationists even fail at their religion. Faith is about what is beyond our ability to understand and to learn. Faith can not and should not be proven and try to compete with science. If faith is about how we came to be, it can't exist because we can learn this. Faith is about something that can't be put into words. Creationists, when they desperately try to "prove" god, demonstrate how insecure they are in their own faith, because for them, each scientific gain of knowledge gives them smaller and smaller things to have faith into.

[@kveldulfpride]

@@maaderllin I don't believe creationism asserts a different method for science. When gathering a hypothesis, you do so with evidence and then test, then it becomes a theory when it becomes more confirmed over time. What I would accuse young earth creationist of doing is cherry picking possibly scripture to fit a narrative when the words themselves carry less historical exactness and are meant (early hebrew for example) more on meaning. Just to put out there, I use to lean more young earth creationist now its old earth, but I'm still a creationist. I see the issue with consciousness being unanswerable within the current framework of pure naturalism and that evolution itself requires a dependency (perfectly timed insertion from an ultimate mind) to start an effective self replicating, robust structure such as DNA to yield the result we recognize as the mind. I further claim that Christianity as the most consistent philosophically and the most satisfying framework for solving internal struggles - not the external/religious perception. I digress though. There are holes I see with the current dating methods, and I do see potential blocks from scientists attempting to protect their stake in posterity (abroad in academia). I see some manner of skepticism as good for academia because, well that's the sane thing to do. Climate science for example is hugely political yet supposed scientists and talking heads run their mouths like they know what they are talking about. Anyone is possibly shamed for pointing out that they are not even reading their own papers when making claims. Point is, we ought to be respectful of those with fundamental differences sometimes because sometimes they are proved correct and our assumptions were actually wrong.

[@TJ87-o4b]

It's been 12 years. Legend has it they're still standing there in awkward silence.

[@ScarTissues]

Oh, I’ve read them. I don’t count them as scientists. 🖐〽️🎤

[@briemuss05]

Yes that really was a short pathetic argument

[@mosscoveredthreehandledgra2357]

@@briemuss05 Why?

[@briemuss05]

RandomSnot Because regardless of what this guy believes, the creationists, that he does not count as scientists, studied at the same universities and got their Ph.d, MA’s and BA’s etc. just like the evolutionists did. To say they are not real scientists is to say the universities don’t know what they are on about and just give these degrees out to any old fool. This guys argument was just prejudice and pathetic. The following people are Christian. Try telling them they are not real scientists. Professor Andy McIntosh DSc, FIMA, CMath, FEI, CEng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAeS has lectured and researched in Combustion and Thermodynamics for over 30 years. He is a visiting research professor at the University of Leeds, UK, and an adjunct professor at Mississippi State University, USA. He has published over 195 papers on aerodynamics, thermodynamics, combustion, biomimetics, and the bombardier beetle research, which has led to a patented spray device for applications of this technology to pharmaceuticals, fuel injectors, and fire extinguishers. Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University. She formerly served as an assistant and associate professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is the director of Educational Content. Professor Stuart Burgess Biomimetics, Engineering (UK) Professor Burgess has held academic posts at Bristol University, Cambridge University and Liberty University in the USA. At Bristol University he was appointed Head of Department three times between 2004 and 2011. He has worked for the European Space Agency and was the lead designer for the solar array on the world’s largest civilian earth-observation spacecraft (Envisat). He also led the design and testing of the chain drive for the British Olympic Cycling Team who won a record six gold medals at the 2016 Rio Olympics. He was invited to exhibit this work at the Royal Society (National Academy of Sciences) in the UK in 2017 where it received national publicity. He has published over 160 scientific papers on the science of design in engineering and nature. Paul Garner is a full-time researcher and lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust. He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. His first book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation, was published by Evangelical Press in 2009. And my absolute favourite. No one dares to even talk about evolution to this guy because he just destroys every argument they have. JAMES M. TOUR, Ph.D. Synthetic chemist. T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry
Professor of Computer Science
Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering
Rice University
Smalley-Curl Institute and the NanoCarbon Center James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. He has also developed strategies for retarding chemical terrorist attacks. For pre-college education, Tour developed the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, and also Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science packages for elementary and middle school education: SciRave (www.scirave.org) which later expanded to a Stemscopes-based SciRave. The SciRave program has risen to be the #1 most widely adopted program in Texas to complement science instruction, and it is currently used by over 450 school districts and 40,000 teachers with over 1 million student downloads. Tour has over 680 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 140 and i10 index = 630 with total citations over 94,120 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013. And the list goes on and on. All these scientists are Christians.

[@mosscoveredthreehandledgra2357]

@@briemuss05 Uh huh, so if I press you to show me examples of scientifically peer reviewed papers submitted by any of these people dealing with creationism you will be able to provide them? Don't worry I wont hold you to that we all know what the results will be, nothing! Personally I don't care wherever a scientist is Christian or not Kenneth Miller is a Christian but given the fact that he accepts the theory of evolution I somehow suspect that you would consider him to be not a true Scotsman, uh I mean Christian. Interesting how scientists are remembered for their contributions our knowledge of he natural world and not their religious views isn't it. As for that James Tour guy, well turns out what you said about him (aside from what's blatant copypasta) is wrong. You pass him off as a great demolisher of evolution when he has simply got reservations even then given that he is a scientist he should know disagreeing with a theory isn't enough. He would have to come up with an alternative.

[@briemuss05]

RandomSnot Dr Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Dr Ron Neller, fluvial geomorphology Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical science Dr David Oderberg, Philosophy Professor Douglas Oliver, Professor of Biology Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botany Dr Gary E. Parker, Biology, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr Graeme Quick, Engineering, former Principle Research Scientist with CSIRO (Australia) Dr Dan Reynolds, Organic Chemistry Dr Chad Rodekohr, Engineering, Physics Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr David Rodda, PhD, Population Genetics Dr David Rosevear, Chemistry Dr Marcus Ross, Paleontology Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemistry / spectroscopy Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Joachim Scheven Paleontology Dr Ian Scott, Education Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physics Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr Emil Silvestru, Geology/karstology Dr Roger Simpson, Engineering Dr Horace D. (‘Skip’) Skipper, Professor Emeritus Soil microbiology, College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences, Clemson University, SC, USA Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoology Dr Andrew Snelling, Geology Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Greg Tate, Plant Pathology Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr Larry Thaete, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Pathobiology Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemistry Dr Brandon van der Ventel, Nuclear scientist Dr Gerald Van Dyke, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus in Botany, North Carolina State University Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoology Dr Joachim Vetter, Biology Dr Erich Vorpagel, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology; computational protein function. Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineering and Geology Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineering Dr Keith Wanser, Physics Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Near-East History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr Carl Werner, Biologist Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology Dr Kurt Wise, Paleontology Dr Bryant Wood, Archaeology Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr Patrick Young, Chemistry and Materials Science Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

[@kristofevarsson6903]

"Never interrupt one's enemy whilst they blunder."

[@diegotavel5872]

Napoleon Bonaparte

[@FanboyFilms]

@@diegotavel5872 I thought that was a Sun Tzu. Live and learn.

[@diegotavel5872]

@@FanboyFilms Actually the real quote goes like this: "In that case,” said Napoleon, “let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”

[@Alleis]

In the spirit of Mikhail Tal.

[@alt0799]

I thought by the title I was going to watch a very short scientist debate with a Creationist.

[@velociraptor938]

***** Nicely done, sir.

[@think_radically1433]

too funny!

[@NightfallShadow]

+Andrew Heard I know right?! I was expecting a midget scientists talking to a creationist lol WHERE IS MY MIDGET!!!!

[@michaelhill5272]

Creationist scientists? That is like saying Devil worshipping christians. Creationists are creationists because they do not know any science, or just about anything else. They are severely retarded.

[@scorp5642]

+Andrew Heard Thank you for helping me catch that lol

[@mesteme]

Intresting, I don't understand though the need to bodyshame the guy, even little people can science.

[@therick363]

Yeah when someone goes right to someone’s physical characteristics it tells me what I need to know

[@a_randomuser4]

As in short. He meant “this is the shortest argument.”

[@fububalla]

I met a 3 foot scientist before, that guy was at least 4' 10 minimum

[@shurik3nz346]

hahahah the title

[@johnmartensen4278]

Hahahahaha

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

fububalla - A scientist with three feet? IT'S A MIRACLE!

[@tripplesixx4556]

Put him on the cross. Eye level achieved.

[@mizofan]

humans are becoming taller- evolution

[@PhilMante]

"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a stupid person." Edit: And the next thing you know, shitloads of comments

[@tempsitch5632]

Never argue with an idiot. They always drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

[@ezekielanderson9055]

Yeah, it's so hard to win an argument with someone who things they can from a dot of nothing exploding. And someone who thinks life somehow magically came from rock soup. And who think all life is magically related. So stupid. Oh wait, that's most scientists. Such idiots 🙄

[@stadtbekanntertunichtgut]

But were can I learn stoopid????

[@ezekielanderson9055]

@@stadtbekanntertunichtgut From evolutionists

[@stadtbekanntertunichtgut]

@@ezekielanderson9055 I'm bad at reading and easy impresed will that be a problem?

[@Trini84818]

What will change your mind? Ken Ham: “Nothing.” Bill Nye: “Evidence.”

[@Kuhtlass]

Ken Ham has his answer. Bill Nye is still looking.

[@titush.3195]

@@Kuhtlass It's better to forever search for the truth than to start believing in a lie

[@elduderino007]

@@Kuhtlass Ken Ham - "Banana's are designed to fit the hand." Bill Nye - "Miss me with that shit."

[@prominentmagpie7153]

bill nye is an idiot who admitted evolution is a belief

[@cookiecracker2]

Don't know where you got that from, ken ham is very factual.

[@DavidCurryFilms]

This storyline was non-canyonical

[@lohphat]

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Issac Asimov

[@monstertrucktennis]

So much more than just a Sci Fi author.

[@michelguevara151]

@@monstertrucktennis mostly a chemist. wrote over 300 books on the subject. taught chemistry too. a brilliant mind.

[@jackasschicken5922]

Intellectuals tend to be the people most lacking wisdom. Go ahead and research it. Government think tanks have been the source of the world's greatest blunders time and time again.

[@eddiethenose3018]

@@jackasschicken5922 ... and also some of the world's greatest achievements! It's hard to mess anything up on a large scale by sitting around driving farts into a couch while watching OW MY BALLS on tv.

[@disneylandonfire3538]

@@jackasschicken5922 so government think-tanks are the representation of science now, lol. While I may agree with a nuanced criticism of scientific institutions today; you, sir, represent a terminal case of cultural stupidity.

[@SoaralotMusic]

I thought video was going to be a debate between a creationist and a short scientist. I was disappointed.

[@notcyndi]

Then you're definitely going to be disappointed by the story of the 20 foot doctors getting the podiatry award.

[@notcyndi]

And one of my favorite newspaper article titles of all time is "Dentist Receives Plaque".

[@MrCfc232]

LMAO

[@Gatitasecsii]

I actually clicked because of that xD

[@DeathByFail]

lmao same

[@natashajohnson4232]

The guy I was dating and I visited the Grand Canyon and he stood there with tears in his eyes and said, "It's amazing that all of this formed in such a short time during the Great Flood!" That was the day I knew this was definitely not someone I could spend my life with. Seriously?????? SMH

[@AClown]

You got played, he was actually testing if you were loyal, I know this because I'm him :'(

[@texabara]

But at least you "de-flowered" him first? Then leaved him... ("Stop crying you creationist sinner and do it!!") ( just a bad joke)

[@FreeTheDonbas]

Did you get your profile pic taken while you guys were there?

[@jackjones298]

Downloading the AnswersInGenesis.org dating app was your first mistake. =)

[@leftpastsaturn67]

+Godly NippleHair You aren't bright enough to know that a "hoe" is a gardening tool. And you're calling someone 'retarded'? Comedy gold.

[@WinstonSmith-mu7ku]

The Grand Canyon is symbolic of the unbridgeable chasm between their respective positions, and the arid nature of the debate!

[@Sherudons]

That awkward silence at the end was perfect. Does the uncut version have him chasing him in a pick-up truck?.

[@ImranKhan1976]

@shaking like tremolo he's from Northern Ireland so it would be flute music.

[@kw8757]

@Paul Morgan I think we can deduce that he's a total bell end just from this 30 seconds.

[@kw8757]

@Paul Morgan Absolutely spot on Paul.

[@QuarrellaDeVil]

Reminded me of the Christopher Hitchens video where some 9/11 conspiracy crackpot was asking him about his position on the war on terror, and Hitches said "I'm not bothering with you."

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

I don't get what the creationist says. He speaks without bothering moving his lips.

[@czechmeowt2868]

He's Irish lol

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

Czech your privilege So anyone to tell me what is happening please ^^ ?

[@czechmeowt2868]

"John thank you for your talk so far, your first assumption was naturalism, and second was uniformitarianism" "well not all scientists, thats a false statement" "so you've never read anything by a scientist like that?" "ahh okay" Those are the four sentences he says

[@geraldmerkowitz4360]

Czech your privilege Thanks, everything is clearer now

[@czechmeowt2868]

Archibald Belanus No problem bud

[@geneduffy]

The light from this comeback took 2 million years to reach these guys.

[@averagejoe2232]

Duuuude that's amazing 🤣🤣

[@tobiaschurch8848]

And there's so many of them😂😂

[@justinorange8903]

there's absolutely no way that guy is the shortest scientist

[@alanwyatt]

Legend has it that he has maintained a vow of silence until he thinks of a comeback and has still not spoken to this day

[@Light-lp8rn]

*Did you not think he did have a comeback ?* Was it not his "right okay" and then his nod of the head followed by his silence, in response to the other gentleman's statement that he doesn't count scientists who do not hold to naturalism as scientists. Was he not effectively highlighting what he sees as the issue with this gentlemen's position ? *Naturalism just means* "(philosophy) the theory that everything in the world and life is based on natural causes" Yet according to Pew Research, only 41% of scientists hold to this view, 7% are on the fence and 51% believe in the supernatural. So to just say that 58% of scientists are not actual scientists is a bit silly isn't it ? *Especially considering, at least for the most part, whether the universe and everything in it, is entirely natural, or supernatural or a mixture is a philosophical question, not a scientific one* So if your philosophical view is so extreme and dogmatic, that you won't even accept people who have a different philosophical view as yourself as scientists, are you actually practicing good science yourself ?

[@bear3616]

Or the video ended.

[@iav9488]

@@Light-lp8rnYour word salad means nothing and isn’t intellectually nutritious

[@Light-lp8rn]

@@iav9488 *I'll try to it explain it more simply* (although it is quite easy to understand) The geologist said something that is ridiculous, the other guy stayed silent to highlight the ridiculousness of the geologist's statement. *The geologist said he doesn't see scientists who do not hold to naturalism as scientists* The reason why this is ridiculous, is again, firstly because 58% of scientists are not naturalists, so he would have to throw out the majority of scientific studies, which is very silly. *And secondly, it is a ridiculous statement because naturalism it is a philosophical view not a scientific one* It would be as equally as ridiculous to say you don't count scientists who are naturalists as scientists. Or that you don't count scientists who are socialists, or capitalists etc as scientists.

[@gregorymoore2877]

@@Light-lp8rn I wonder what the geologist will do with Sir Isaac Newton when he finds out Newton believed in God?

[@rubyhoney6177]

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” ― Napoleon

[@Wanderlust1972]

Religion is just as much as a deterrent as the death penalty. Its not good.

[@leonscott543]

Good one Napoleon, wait, what does Darwism do again? Oh yea that's right, rich murdering the poor

[@rubyhoney6177]

leon scott what has murdering the poor got to do with Darwin ?

[@rubyhoney6177]

Pork Sword the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform It still works great in the USA

[@leonscott543]

Ruby Honey Survival of the fittest. Hitler's actions are very Darwinian . Stalin's actions are very Darwinian. Any situation where people in control are taking advantage of the less fortunate is Darwinian. If you don't understand that, well then you should further investigate Darwinian.

[@rubenvanbeesten]

Who else gets recommended these random 30 second videos from ages ago for no apparent reason? 😂 I love it though!

[@cappinjocj9316]

rubenvanbeesten yup, same here mate.

[@cyclingseagull]

A short film about a short scientist--total class

[@steveingorge]

Your right! How does this end up in my KZbin feed? Haha.

[@lasvegasloner4621]

Thankfully I do as well.

[@anonymousbosch9265]

It happened again, 4 months later

[@trashdragon6289]

"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's impossible to win an argument against a really really short person."

[@bigwillchill]

I love to hear creationists and their arguments for how adam and eve created all of us through incest

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

i love hearing about how atheists have no clue about how the big bang happened.

[@bigwillchill]

@@brendanbloomberg3283 lmao i love hearing ignorant comments like yours. did you know that creationists love claiming they know everything, by quoting the bible which was written by people who didnt even know what bacteria were? at least the sciences don't claim to know everything. we know when to say 'we dont know.' the big bang didnt come from nothing. we literally dont know yet. like we didnt know about bacteria at one point. there are scientific advancements every day. do religions ever find out new things? nope they believe in the same old outdated shit. please tell me how adam and eve populated the whole world through incest. please do. im love that story

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

@@bigwillchill you're a woman.

[@brendanbloomberg3283]

@@bigwillchill whyd you like your own comment?

[@bigwillchill]

@@brendanbloomberg3283 cant refute any of my points huh? i thought so. you're too dumb, so you resort to petty personal attacks? yup you're a typical creationist LMAOOOO i love that creastionists tout that they're smart and superior but when it actually comes down to it, they are like every other half brained nitwit out there. lol you fell for the biggest and oldest scam lol your brain has a lot growing up to do buddy

[@qualifiedidiots2165]

Future generations won’t understand how this footage was captured. “Teacher, Is this a reimagining? I ask because the conversation doesn’t match the era of the technology used to film it”

[@inventor121]

Teacher: It isn't a reimagining, this is an actual series of events that happened, it's one of the many many reasons that led to the Meme Wars of 2030-2040. During the late 2010s and early 2020s tribalism, fanaticism, and fundamentalism were rampant. The world was rapidly changing due to the events of the 4th Industrial revolution and new discoveries were throwing centuries old beliefs into question. To answer these questions we must understand the fundamentals of belief, the nature of memetics, and geography. It is well documented in pre-industrial history that people with different beliefs would end up fighting each other. We see ideological conflict as far back as the early Bronze Age, where those who worshipped different gods considered others to be sub-human. You can tell a lot about a culture by it's religion, artwork, and educational systems. This is because a culture is made of memes, (fragments of common thoughts, principles, and morals such as "do not kill" or " slavery is bad") and memes are essentially the genetics of the mind. They can be transmitted, passed down, mutate, and even come into conflict with each other. Thus you could think of a civilisation as a psychological organism. Back then there were people who believed in a certain way of life, in a certain codex of memes. These codecs were called names such as Bible, Koran, Talmud and the basis for several belief systems known as religions. Now I know that you've had to read those boring things in your mythology classes but you have to remember that there were people who thought that it contained the literal truth rather than the reimagining that it was. There were also those who believed that there would be certain consequences for experimenting with the human body, that the entire world would become a nuclear fireball, if such experiments took place. Until the turn of the millennium these religions were more or less confined to their respective geographical regions with one religion being dominant in a certain region by a large margin. However with the advent of highly accessible air travel and of course the Internet that changed, the world suddenly got connected globally in real time. Climate disasters and minor unrests as well as moves made by demagogues that had been elected to power solely for their charisma, and not their competence, caused mass migration. This along with industrial agriculture resulted in a population boom in nations all over the world. Soon various belief systems started filtering into each other and soon significant minority groups existed within the majority belief systems, in fact it's more accurate to say that there were no geographical majority belief systems at the time, the only real exceptions were the Arabian peninsula and China due to their strict religious rules and their complete authoritarianism respectively. The people who held onto these beliefs were starting to become a minority in a region of previous geographical dominance, there were multiple religions back then and all of them had one central tenet "We are right and everyone else is wrong". By eroding away the one form of central power a power vacuum was formed, I'm sure your studies on the Iraq Wars last semester covered what happens when a power vacuum is formed. Up until this point the governmental system had been based on the idea of the "rational man" that was developed in the Renaissance period. Democracy thrived under tolerance, open discussion, and rational evaluation. However the rapidly changing nature of the early 21st century caused people to panic, that soon their beliefs would become obsolete, and this drove people to fundamentalism, to defensiveness, it was essentially a global panic attack managed in the worst possible way. A sudden pandemic that destabilised the economy didn't help matters along with the ongoing climate crisis. This feeling of being attacked culturally resulted in the Meme Wars. In my opinion it should have been called the Global Civil War as social justice (the room of students lets out a gasp of horror), essentially rule by mob, was carried out by parties everywhere, in places like the USA it was full on gang violence as people shot each other in the name of being right. In China the Communist Party committed several acts of genocide after the COVID crisis caused companies to pull out of the country thus destabilising it's economy causing unrest. Eventually this turned into full on warfare after an extremist Chinese submarine captain sank a US aircraft carrier with a nuclear torpedo. We all know what happened from there. Now then I believe that's it for class today, tomorrow the Queen is visiting our school. Don't be late and go gets some sleep! You can ask her about that time period if it interests you, she lived through it after all. Everyone knew how the Queen stopped the war and ushered in the Space Age that had brought prosperity to mankind. She was a benevolent ruler, and usually didn't mess with the local affairs of the planets under her rule. When she did it was to avert a crisis that could have led to extinction. It was the reason why they were all part of the Interstellar British Empire under the Immortal Queen Elisabeth.

[@ParasiticTruth]

@@inventor121 I need to remember to copy paste this epic comment when I get back to my computer

[@jeff3dv]

@@inventor121 I gotta say, I stopped and read the whole comment. : )

[@milanstevic8424]

@@inventor121 Children: Teacher, is it true that Milenko fornicated with the Queen? What does that mean? Teacher: Shhh child, or we'll be all invited to attend Kawadoodoo RL .. Children: Yaaay!! Teacher: .. as contestants .. Children (cowering): Ohhhh! But teacher, only Corryans can survive the hungry Streamers! Teacher (whispering): We never ever speak of godforsaken Serbs again, understood? Children: Okay :( But he's so cool. Teacher: EVER. Now go and read your prayers for democracy.

[@milanstevic8424]

@@inventor121 I'm sorry I ... I couldn't resist finishing that beautiful saga with a stark realistic contrast.

[@bullymaguire2061]

I still can't believe a word called "evolutionist" came up. It's like calling someone an "earthist" because they believe that the earth is real.

[@sunblaze8931]

Suboptimal Constructor Why are creationists called creationists? We need names for these hugely different beliefs. Evolutionism is a worldview, as creationism is.

[@stylishskater92]

@@sunblaze8931 Well, a word view based on overwhelming evidence and reason. Thats like saying "eating" is a world view. I guess you can view the world in a way where you dont eat.

[@achyuthansanal]

Jesus Christ “Evolutionism” isn’t a world view. It’s the truth.

[@sunblaze8931]

Achyuthan Sanal Evolutionism is a worldview. It’s the worldview that humans evolved from animals.

[@sunblaze8931]

Achyuthan Sanal Also, I don’t disagree with the validity of evolution, I just hold that it is a worldview.

[@shadow_flux2304]

lowkey dont even know who won with that

[@TheFallibleFiend]

"God did it" is never a scientific answer; it's the opposite of science.

[@evnwood]

Unless the final conclusion of science is that "God did it".

[@TheFallibleFiend]

that is never the final conclusion of science.

[@evnwood]

Fallible Fiend Correction *that has never been the final conclusion of science.

[@TheFallibleFiend]

And never will be.

[@TheFallibleFiend]

Omar Ortiz I never said that there was evidence against a god. I only said that "God did it" is not and never will be a scientific explanation. I also never claimed to "know" that god doesn't exist; however, I actively disbelieve in the existence of any supernatural god(s).

[@ToastedFanArt]

Is the creationist from Northern Ireland!?!

[@colmivers]

Theres a lot of fundamentalist unionist in the north sadly

[@spikeannoyed]

Unfortunately yes ...

[@blackhairedgoon8218]

colm ivers Not just unionist, just about everyone

[@DM-kv9kj]

And the British Conservative Party paid some of the worst of them, the DUP, £1.5 billion to make up a majority so they could stay in government after their last disastrous election fiasco.. while saying there's not enough money to fund basic public services, slashing funding from even the police and the military. So now these moronic nut-cases form part of the British government with some of the most corrupt people in British politics...

[@1ACORNLAWN]

My vice president is a creationist...scary times my friends

[@andotech]

"You can't tell me how it happened so God did it" is not science.

[@numinous4789]

Correct; it's called "The God of the Gaps" argument, and it's a classic logical fallacy. Another related logical fallacy is "We Don't Know Exactly How it Happened, so Evolution" (The Evolution of the Gaps Fallacy).

[@makoanders1180]

It's a logic used a lot in religion context : because you can't prove it -> god exists ! - I don't know what part of the brain should be missing, to follow this logic ... If you can't prove something, it means nothing is sure.

[@FRD357]

Numinous, evolution and god are in no way similar. God isn't proven and never was, evolution is proven. If i throw a rock into the air and it lands, we can assume that gravity caused it to fall to the ground, without knowing that it did. Is this a "gravity of the gaps fallacy"?

[@andotech]

Numinous- can you give an example of someone using the Evolution of the Gaps Fallacy? I've not heard this before.

[@numinous4789]

Sorry, Fritz, your faith in the "proof" of the theory of evolution (particularly macro-evolution) is entirely misplaced and predicated on inaccuracy and misunderstanding on your part. The fact of the matter is that macro-evolution is one of the most hotly contested theories of all time, right up there with anthropogenic climate change. But wait, there's more: what's confusing you is that micro-evolution, which is limited to short-term mutation and epigenetic adaptation, is demonstrable and easily seen readily, even within a generation or two. Nobody is disputing this. Your err is in having an unsophisticated, lacking view of the entirety of the theory, particularly the evolution-of-all-species-from-a-common-ancestor part (macro-), which has very little evidence (and most certainly zero "proof," which in the strictest, formal sense is a phenomenon relegated to the discipline of mathematics). Additionally, another fact you're ignoring is that many Christians have no problem with evolution (en total) at all, seeing it as a creative mechanism that God implemented in the creation of organisms. Accordingly, with a subset of the faithful, no dichotomy between God and macro-evolution exists. Sure, Andotech - the abject lack of intermediary lifeforms antecedent to the Cambrian Explosion, treated by the EOTG fallacy thusly: "Because yet-to-be proven evolution manifested in the heretofore unidentified, intermediary lifeforms. Even though we haven't found said lifeforms yet, we know conclusively they exist without evidence, because evolution." It's actually a form of circular reasoning too, which makes it even more embarrassing. Ludovic, I'm sorry, but you're quite ignorant if you believe sound logic of the first order is the exclusive intellectual property of atheists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read up on C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig if you disbelieve. Some Christians are world-class logicians. Your statement is unsubstantiated illusion, and easily demonstrably disproven.

[@sarahjhigh5]

Was really hoping this would be a regular length debate between the shortest scientist and the shortest creationist.

[@lonestar6709]

_"Thick people are very good at arguments. Because they're too stupid to realize they've lost."_ -Chris Morris.

[@dannygjk]

@@lukasbrucas3027 It's a different thick/thicc. 'Thick' as in 'thick-skulled', dumb, stupid, etc.

[@stuffstuff137]

Yeah you can throw all the facts at them but they’ll just denied it

[@rhysf.505]

Question, who do you is better at arguing in this instance?

[@Rezinstance]

@@rhysf.505 You wanna finish that sentence there, buddy?

[@rhysf.505]

Rez, hurrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[@774Rob]

You are all wrong. I have it on good authority that the universe and everything in it was created a week last Tuesday at 29 Acacia Rd, Elton Wellesby, Suffolk, England. It was created by Mr Eric Twinge.

[@lrozenwater]

How would you know? YOU WEREN'T THERE!

[@GianfrancoFronzi]

I happen to know Mr. Twinge and he did take Sunday off .

[@774Rob]

Gianfranco Fronzi That confirms it.

[@RealYellowbeard]

With all compliments to Mister Twinge, he could have given me more stuff. I like stuff.

[@774Rob]

RealYellowbeard So it begins. Somebody will be along in a while to explain how it was actually Mr Chorlton at Number 42 who created it and Mr Twinge only helped. Maybe they will offer more stuff.

[@CoriSparx]

What really bothers me is how creationists always accuse non-creationists of "making assumptions", when they're the ones making the biggest assumptions of all... -_-;

[@adriqueru]

tell someone that there is an invisible man in the sky watching over them and they'll believe you,tell someone that the paint on the wall is not dry and they'll need to touch it to believe it

[@prettybitchmarquitos392]

There is actual proof of god though and there is proof that the wall is not dry. Bad analogy dude.

[@NederWHAT]

there is absolutely no proof of the existence of god, seriously nothing.

[@adriqueru]

DJ Pororo it's not an analogy,it's a quote. And let me see your proof of god existence

[@CoriSparx]

DJ Pororo I guarantee that any "proof" you claim to have of the existence of God can be, and has been, attributed to other things around the world. If the fact that humans are conscious, the fact that we have a concept of love, the fact that we have food to eat on the earth etc. is what you consider to be evidence of God, then who's to say that, if there MUST be a god responsible for such things, that it's YOUR god? The Hindus, Shintos, Zoroastrians, and others all probably say that THEIR gods are the ones responsible for all the things you say yours is, so what are the chances that YOU are the one that's correct?

[@avwie132]

Just looking at the thumbnails, based on the glasses I can guess who is the creationist and who isn’t

[@themodernshoe2466]

Why do I watch videos like these? It's like I'm seeking out something to hear that makes me angry.

[@SNAKEPATR10T]

I think I have this problem as well...

[@apr2047]

same here its like i wanna get pissed off

[@apr2047]

E. Ras i didn't even know that, thats really annoying, i need to check that out hahaha

[@harpfully]

You folks are taking the wrong attitude. It's surreal comedy! :-)

[@apr2047]

guess so hahaha

[@tennoshenaniganizer9234]

"Oh I've read them, I just don't count them as scientists." REKT

[@animusauthor]

Rekt his own argument, you mean?

[@animusauthor]

@Rick Harrison Doesn't make a strong case when you have to back your argument by discounting an opposing argument simply on a basis of a contrived, or selective, definition of a term. It's a bullshit lingo maneuver, sort of like "assault weapon" or "destructive device". He might as well have just said "I don't listen to big stinky dumb-dumbs"- the level of intellectual maturity would be about the same.

[@nickmessner700]

@@animusauthor You have a base misunderstanding here. He detailed his argument before the creationist young man spoke. Informing him that creation "scientists" aren't actually scientists had no impact on the argument. There was no insult or ad hom in the statement, just the reality that creation is not a position you could reach scientifically

[@SeminarChauffeur]

@@animusauthor yeah cuz those who read the LOTR and are trying to prove the Hobbit is real are scientists too 😂

[@animusauthor]

@@SeminarChauffeur Nowhere even close to my point in any of my responses on this thread. Are you one of those people?

[@davehansen9124]

Science flies men to the moon. Religion flies airplanes into buildings.

[@paulmorgan6717]

Dave Hansen loved that

[@davehansen9124]

paul morgan Actually, that's a quote from the late professor Victor J Stenger, author of the outstanding book "God: The Failed hypothesis". He grew up in a Catholic working-class neighborhood in Bayonne New Jersey, and became a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.

[@STR33TSofJUST1C3]

Dave Hansen Unfortunately very true.

[@davehansen9124]

Tony Droid Flying to the moon is evil ? LOL Fuck tard ? I can't stop laughing !

[@davehansen9124]

Tony Droid What's your point, troller boy ?

[@fiarandompenaltygeneratorm5044]

That was a 100,000,000 million year pause there at the end.

[@RobynHarris]

Calling a foot, a hand, doesn't make it so. Calling a creationist, a scientist, doesn't make it so.

[@nicks9359]

There is such a thing as creation science you, idiot

[@RobynHarris]

Name calling, always the sign of a well thought out argument. After spending a great deal of time listening to creationists over the past 35 years. I would say that there is no such thing as a creation scientist. I will use Ken Hamm and his "Answers in Genesis" group for my example. The key to being a scientist is the willingness to always look at new evidence and be willing to alter or abolish an existing theory if it does not fit the evidence. The "Answers in Genesis" group explicitly say on their web site that any evidence that is in contradiction to the Bible is, by definition, wrong. How it is wrong may not be understood, but it is wrong and no disagreement on that point is allowed. Scientists start with evidence and work towards a theory that is compatible with that evidence. Always being willing to change the theory if the evidence leads in a new direction. Creationism starts with a position and then ignores or modifies any evidence that does not fit their worldview. Creationists try to fit any evidence to their preconception. It is conceivable, (though extraordinarily unlikely) that evolution could be disproven someday by science on the basis of new evidence. It is not conceivable that it would be disproven by Creationism, as Creationism is not science. It is an authoritarian belief system, that says the world is the way it is, because I (or you or God or someone else) says that it is this way. Nothing to do with science.

[@bobbutts4402]

RobynHarris too long, did not read.

[@RobynHarris]

>> Bob Butts -- too long, did not read. 258 words was too long for Mr. Butts to read. I guess that's "Creation Science" in a nutshell.

[@bobbutts4402]

RobynHarris lol. you're writing essays on youtube. your opinion really means nothing now. go get laid already.

[@roberteli5235]

Creationism is not science.

[@ComradeDragon1957]

Sure it is. in their own little messed up world it is...where a guy can be made out of dirt and can pull out his rib and make a woman. And if a snake tells you to eat a fruit,don't eat it!For some reason eating that one fruit in the ENTIRE GARDEN will make Earth a hellish place,with starvation,wars,etc etc.

[@roberteli5235]

TheCommunistDragon51 True. In their crazy imagination. I had hard time believing their bullshit even when I was a child but boy did they make me. I am lucky to no longer be brainwashed Bible thumper.

[@ComradeDragon1957]

Robert Eli Funny enough they say Atheists are just indoctrinated. When infact Christians are the ones that do that,as well as many other religious people. Take India for example. or the Middle east. As well my parents ARE CHRISTIAN. And funny enough even though I have not gone to church since I was 5-6,(okay I did decide to go out one day 4-3 years ago just to check it out,itwasfuckinghorriblebtw,but then I was just an agnostic,not an Atheist.Now I am)

[@roberteli5235]

TheCommunistDragon51 So true. For some reason they think that a lack of belief in a claim is somehow a claim in itself. And about indoctrination. My entire and school are all Christian. My parents had taught me since I knew how to speak that God and the Bible was true. It sucks.

[@ComradeDragon1957]

***** We can observe it,kinda. You like at stars and judge their distances,one light year=one year for it's light to reach you. Not only that but Radiometric dating is observable and can be repeated.

[@5893MrWilson]

Problem 1: Which of the following is the best way to answer questions and discover the truth. A.) Read many books and use the scientific method B.) Read one book and ask your imaginary friend

[@speedy7040]

***** , creationists do not search for the best way to answer questions ( "o, you of little faith ") and do not want to discover the truth (they don't "discover" , they are teached, told, showed.....) Slave mentallity. So , yeah, one book and one shepard.. easy and not al all confusing. And the best part , if fallowing THAT shepard makes you do bad things ( like sacrificing your own kid on an altar ) it is NOT YOUR FAULT.

[@timspangler8440]

speedy Stereotype much? Did you figure out the origin of life apart from God? If you ever do, the rest of the world will worship you. Ironic,huh?

[@speedy7040]

Tim, 1., I was not talking about God and the origin of life, but about the BIBLE- wich is a BOOK, stories told and interpreted for hundreds of years by hundreds of ppl (HUMANS) before beeing written, and then copyed hundreds of times and then TRANSLATED for 3-4 times... and then copyed again... and then SELECTED... and interpreted...and "completed' ... It is really stupid to belive in theese conditions that the Bible is 100 % true. Even if Moses heard the word of God, it is certain that what you have in your hands today it is not what Moses heard. 2.Stereotype... hm..I'm sorry , is something I said NOT from your Bible ? Maybe I am wrong and chistianity is all for the science and discoverys ... and the Dark Ages was just a big misunderstand... wait , aren't creationist rejecting with out explaination ALL the evidence against their theory - bones, geografie, geologie,biologie, ancient civilization, carbon dating etc... , refusing even to look at it ??? How else can you reamain a creationist (again it is not about beliving in God , but in the Bible) if you really look at the facts ?

[@Sunchildval]

***** Scientists use a lot of methods to estimate the age of something. C14 is only one of them. What's more, every scientist theory is refutable. You know why ? Because it was made to be refutable. It is the basis of the scientific method. Seriously, if you pay more attention to something that has been written in a book by some men, rather than paying attention to theories which has been tested and validated following a clear, precise and refutable method, then I can't do anything for you.

[@girthicusmaximus]

in my book ***** atheists are but children trying to understand their own conception without someone teaching it to them

[@ineedabetterusername7424]

This plays like a satire. However, due to my vast and unfortunate experience with both scientists and young-earth creationists, I'm 99% convinced this is no satire.

[@williamstrumfels3305]

want to debate about the earth being flat or the center of the universe too.. its the same dribble

[@markm1654]

I agree. But don't you mean drivel?

[@williamstrumfels3305]

Mark m I agree .. I do mean drivel

[@thack6532]

I just saw this comment and to respond. The Bible has always been way ahead of the science of man. Written around 700 BC, God had the prophet Isaiah write this. Isaiah 40:22 He (God) sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.

[@SelcraigClimbs]

+T hack What does that have to do with science? You could claim God is up on a mountain and the people look like mites. Humans understand that the higher you go the smaller things look below you. and the greeks knew the earth was spherical way before that passage was written. 384-322 BC

[@needlesslyredundant]

+T Hack "The Bible has always been way ahead of the science of man." And where in the bible do they explain quantum mechanics, relativity, germ theory and evolution (Just to name a few)?

[@truebinx]

"oh I've read them but I don't count them as scientists" LMFAO brilliant.

[@yhenry77]

"I don't count them as scientists" THEM? Who is them? Wouldn't it better to name specific scientists, books and projects, etc.? Brilliant? for one the word 'creationist' is invalid stereotype for a group of people. The term should never be used by scientists, they're too many backgrounds and beliefs. Did you know the're some who believe the earth is 4.54 billions year old and others believe that evolution allows species to adapt to the environment.

[@truebinx]

David Henry You do realize there are different names for different types of hypothesis on "creation" right. The term Creationism specifically refers to a hypothesis in which the earth popped into existence 6,500 years ago at the hands of gawd. The other forms of 'creationism' your referring to is called Intelligent Design, thanks for the persnickety rant though, was entertaining.

[@speedingatheist]

truebinx Actually there are two kinds of creationism, young earth and old earth creationism. The second one is just a little less crazy than the first.

[@truebinx]

ronnystoehr I'll give you that, although not by much but yes a little less crazy.

[@yhenry77]

truebinx The second one is just a little less crazy than the first. I'll give you that, although not by much but yes a little less crazy. Now there's scientific argument for not using a stereotype... LOL

[@northerniltree]

When a midget scientist angrily disagrees with you, just say: "Look, Pal. Don't get short with me."

[@Xarai]

dude he is like 5'6 the average height GLOBALLY which btw is actually better because after that back problems are a HUGE problem like srsly think before your dumbass types

[@northerniltree]

@@Xarai I've considered your reply. And found that it comes up short.

[@Romeo-le2ez]

@@Xarai were you having a bad day or something?

[@Xarai]

@@Romeo-le2ez yeah thats gotta be it. lets not think at all fuck that shit thinking is too hard

[@kidgameerboy9932]

@@northerniltree man, your come back was a long shot compared to his, and it worked!

[@FIFA_FOREVER_CHAMPS]

😂 like when you lose an argument to your big brother: “ah… all right ok!” 😂😂😂

[@BlikeNave]

"Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof."

[@BlikeNave]

+Nj Rh I suppose atheists do have faith that there is no God, since there is no evidence that he does NOT exist either. As for the definition... it is the same across all popular definition websites (likely including the atheist manifesto : ] ) as well as some little known names, like Merriam-webster, dictionary . com, Oxford dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc... Even the religious site "GotQuestions . org" says "Thankfully, the Bible contains a clear definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: 'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.' Simply put, the biblical definition of faith is 'trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove.'" I can go on and on but I'm too lazy, but it seems that some of those who possess faith (like yourself) seem to only want to reject supported claims (as you said, "I don't believe in it"), and believe in the unsupported. Look it up yourself, then deny and deny and deny away....

[@BlikeNave]

***** I'm just quoting the sources.

[@BlikeNave]

+Nj Rh If you're trying to argue that faith is based on proof and evidence rather than a lack of it then we better end this discussion right now, as we'll never agree. I follow the definitions of the official sources... you deny them and follow your interpretation of the Bible.

[@BlikeNave]

***** Blame gotquestions . org then. But even so... one out of five sources is off in your opinion... the majority supports my original claim: "Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof." My intent is simply to spread the definition of faith- the common definition, the majority definition. How can i deliberately misuse something that you say I don't even understand? I'm muting this post, cuz you'll go on and on talking about how the bible says that faith is based on proof of miracles... (zzzz...) while I quote the sources. We'll go on and on in circles until we die and find out the truth. Like I said, "We'll never agree. I follow the definitions of the official sources... while you follow the Bible" Enjoy your life, Nj! Good bye forever. : ]

[@killianhearne193]

Faith: belief in someone or something. You need a dictionary.

[@ismailabdelirada9531]

So far, about 4,500 creationists have watched this video.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

one a year? i can provide scientific evidence that youtube is only 400 years old, not enough time for videos to have appeared randomly.

[@pursuitsoflife.6119]

@@HarryNicNicholas ???????

[@purplepoet6147]

hey, I liked the video

[@kanseidorifto2430]

I thought it was funny.

[@tyrionlannister9273]

It's up to at least 5k currently. Good use of evidence.

[@glitchygear9453]

It's always fun to see a comment section with atheists and creationists endlessly insulting each other with nothing productive happening.

[@Cipher_Paul]

I haven't seen any of those for now

[@jackdearmitt1328]

Comment Sections aren’t known for being productive.

[@ExpertContrarian]

Implying that creationists are capable of productive discussion? All they can do is lie and be dishonest so what do you expect?

[@Shamunt]

@@ExpertContrarianwhat would atheists have to prove anyway? Its a one sided argument this persons trying to paint as a both sides situation

[@PeeweePanda]

​@@ExpertContrarian You think no creationists can have a productive discussion? And do you think this blanket statement borderline insult comment is productive? Perhaps one of the causes of your unproductive discussions is you.

[@kerplop]

The sad part is that both of them think they won that argument.

[@brianmi40]

Rational, logical evidence is what WINS every time. And only ONE of them here was using that at all. We have ZERO reasons to support a book that PROMOTES SLAVERY: Leviticus 25:44-46 King James Version 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

[@mrbrandonbrown7072]

@@brianmi40 Yet we support a country that promotes Wage Slavery. GG

[@brianmi40]

@@mrbrandonbrown7072 Would you rather support Russia? Learn to separate a COUNTRY from the POLITICIANS you vote for. It's gonna be REALLY IMPORTANT Nov. 5th.

[@ClayishWall]

@@brianmi40what’s nov 5th?

[@_thomas1031]

​@@brianmi40​ Let's not forget that the slavery in Ancient Isreal is by no means comparable to the brutal slave trade. Evidence? Firstly, it was punishable by death to kidnap a man and sell him, in essence forced slavery, God gave this law Genesis 21:16, it's clear in any online or physical copy of scripture you may read. Secondly, one might think how could God institute slavery, that's not caring? Keep in mind that by the time the first books of the Bible were written, mankind had already settled social structures where abusive slavery had taken place. All of the Hebrew scriptures referring to slavery if you read are in the context of God tolerating slavery, under his circumstances though. Evidence? Leviticus 25:39-41, slaves were to be treated as hired workers and would be set free at the seventh year. All of this is just to understand what Hebrew scripture set forth, Christians that respect God's word as a whole know that the new covenant made through Christ set principles for people to live without the implementation of slavery Evidence?treat others as equal and treat them in kind Matthew 7:12, also 1st John 5:19. The slavery that you're thinking of is not loving, we certainly agree on that, but the Bible does not promote oppressive slavery now and never did even in Hebrew scripture

[@ashtona2404]

You wanna know what makes scientist better than creationist? Their not afraid to admit when they're wrong. as we learn more, previous beliefs and theories change or are proven wrong and scientist are ok with admitting that. Religious ppl refuse to even consider the fact that they might be wrong

[@commonclayofthenewwest6045]

You wanna know what makes a creationist better than a scientist? We can deal with the horribleness of the world that None of Us can escape. Because at the end of the day, when we see the beauty and perfection of planetary systems, the designs of mother nature, and complexity of the human mind, we know that something that stands the test of time has created all of it, and That Creator is inviting us to be held through all of eternity. (You can say it as unrealistic as Santa, but to me, so is a perfect solar system forming from some Random explosion of Nothingness) To us Creationists, there is an artist for this unknown painting. & I gotta tell ya, on a personal note, as a former atheist, Its more rewarding and joyous to believe this way. It definitely kicks the sh*t out of my old mindset, which to sum up in a sentence, was me cursing a God that I thought I didn't believe in and wanting to leave an earth that I was living on.,. But I guess im just another close-minded dumbass that doesn't think like you. You can call me hopeless, but that would be the most amazing irony of all the ages.

[@zmanafacation]

+MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow im sorry, but all that is the exact opposite of dealing with the horribleness of the world.

[@ashtona2404]

MyThousandYearOldWisdom WillHelpYouGrow I mean yeah it's nice to believe that we go to a eternal paradise when we die and it's nice to think that there is a creator watching over and us and stuff but when all this claims have little to no evidence to back them up, what's the point.

[@MegaClaymore123]

The difference between a person of science and a person of faith is one values evidence, logic, and truth over desperate hope, and the other doesn't. I think when it comes down to it, a creationist is really just someone who can't cope with the idea of an end to consciousness ... Which although I am an atheist, I can understand to some degree. Death is terrifying. The way I approach death personally, is with the understanding that we have all been dead for an infinite amount of time before we were born, and we will be dead for an infinite amount of time after we die. Between those two events however, we are privileged to have just under a century of time to connect with people, learn about our universe, and find happiness. And I think that is a wonderful gift that I don't intend to waste....

[@Grokford]

Glokib you're conflating a belief in creationism with a a reason for religion. Simply put if there is a God then creationism isn't far fetched it doesn't matter what God or if you believe it on a purely hypothetical basis it makes more sense that any god that might exist would be involved in some manner.

[@bjarczyk]

I actually give the creationist man credit for stopping right there. Most are so arrogant and just wont stop spouting ignorance.

[@morefiction3264]

Well, the video is cut off there and looks to be deceptively edited.

[@yueshijoorya601]

I think it's more likely that the guy, in that moment, began thinking "well in that case, being a scientist isn't all that great hmpf 😤😤"

[@morefiction3264]

@@251rmartin Considering the 'argument' in the video by the atheist was merely an assertion...

[@morefiction3264]

@@251rmartin There is no debate in the video. There's a fragment of a conversation.

[@morefiction3264]

@@251rmartin Semantics is the study of meaning. So yes, semantics in that the video title says it's a debate but the fragment we see doesn't meet anybody's definition of debate.

[@Campbellteaching]

Well to be fair, the two guys were outclassed by the geologist, it does not say too much about their mutual positions.

[@sen7826]

Their positions were that he was standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon and disagreeing with them. A very dangerous position I'd say.

[@brandonszpot8948]

Tim Webb He responded with buzzword “arguments” that he sees as fallacies, because he has nothing else to go on. There’s no stance to present. He can only make some dumb sophist point about naturalism and uniformitarianism. Meaninglessness, zero substance. I’d say it was a pretty balanced fight.

[@sen7826]

@Tim Webb they didn't use even the short time given to them. They were silent. So, I'd think adding extra silent seconds to the video doesn't make it a better argument...?

[@sen7826]

@Tim Webb adding extra silent seconds to the video wouldn't make it worse? (Although I personally don't think that it is bad at all.)

[@sen7826]

@Tim Webb My issue is with your first reply. All the subsequent replies you made were conversations with the op. Not me. And you already started a personal attack when you know next to nothing about me. Why? It's just rude, and not even rational. Besides that, how about addressing what I asked?

[@onetruetroy]

Grand Canyon: 2 billion years to form and 5 to 6 million years to shape. Creationists are so funny.

[@tefras14]

That scientist was NOT short. I feel cheated and butthurt

[@edsongrim5446]

tefras14 lmao I thought the same thing

[@123sheag]

its funny cause thats what creationists do lol

[@andylara5085]

I think they meant the DURATION of the video, NOT how short the scientist is.

[@edgepleb8516]

tefras14 The word ever is at the end by the way.

[@kanegarvey3188]

Andy Lara I think he was JOKING.

[@user-dw2nu2sq5t]

The Scientist seemed average height to me

[@chefmike8177]

Lol.

[@germanvisitor2]

That is the interpreter. The scientist is too small to be seen.

[@user-zb8tq5pr4x]

Well you seemed of average intelligence to me, guess we were both wrong

[@noisew4ll]

God obviously carved out the Grand Canyon with a spoon. Thought it was Ben & Jerry's and was like "ah shit, oh well"

[@ZapKrannigan]

He took a few bites and quickly realized it was all rocks and sand

[@CotymoG]

Erik Redeker and that's how "Rocky Road" was invented.

[@absurdrhino]

except there are no roads in the canyon you complete dipshit moron

[@rhyswelding3657]

absurdrhino Christ, he was only trying to make a joke

[@absurdrhino]

I saw it as a defamation of my character

[@cjjohnson9413]

I’ve said this for many years. If you have any question about the age of the earth, take a hike in the canyon.