The Arrogance of Creationism (1)

[@bushputz]

I define 'nothing' as what Creationism has in common with reality...

[@stargarden2577]

I define nothing as the space between these creationsit preachers' ears

[@illusionoffreedom2254]

if god created all matter, he is literally creating something out of nothing . exactly what christians say is impossible . so they expect me to believe the impossible is possible . go figure ,

[@nudirt1274]

+illusion of freedom But..b..u..BUT ITS GAAWWD

[@arthursulit]

+Soum Bhaery no, it's just Organized Atheists creating the illusion by funding shows to spread the socialist propaganda that there's no gaaawwwd, so they can massacre another 200 million humans and another 300 million "fetal tissue harvests" for profit

[@deathtotruthers1]

+illusion of freedom Yet they can never explain what created God. In their own words, either he created himself, which they claim is impossible, or he was created out of nothing, which they claim can't happen, or he was created by something else, which they say is the only possible alternative. What created God? They never can say. Perhaps its just turtles all the way down.

[@arthursulit]

Death ToTruthers nope u got it all confused like unintelligible gibberish. Atheists can't explain how they stand on Turtles, so they say "poof", existence appears out of nothing, and multiverses poof out of nothing from nothing.

[@theot58]

+illusion of freedom God is outside time and mater. He is the eternal first cause.This is perfectly logic if you overcome your bias.

[@dropkickthunderbook8450]

In the future Christianity will be viewed the same way as we view the ancient Greek gods now, as a myth. Maybe Ubisoft can one day include Christianity in its age of mythology saga, talking snakes and all Lol

[@redjirachi1]

And in the 41st century we will have Pastafarian Creationism

[@chainezo]

John Porteous the spaghetti monster will rise as our true god over all other false gods and will crush them so we loyal can be with it forever

[@robertbuckley3762]

I cant wait until that day. And have you ever thought about a new god being invented in this day and age? Chances are pretty slim huh?

[@dropkickthunderbook8450]

Mate you and me both haha i thought it was pretty slim too but im pretty sure Scientology has proved us wrong Lol

[@dbabr5968]

News flash! The ancient greek gods are NOT a myth. It ties into Genesis 6 of the Bible. These "gods" were fallen-angels , & they mated with human women. Their offspring were the Nephilium. These "giants" were nothing more than half-breeds with wicked ways, superior physical strength, perverted sexuality & war-mongers. God has referred to them as an abomination! Educate yourself before you get out there and make a comment.

[@cush6827]

the first hydrogen atoms formed at >320000a after the big bang, when energy was low enough to let electrons join with protons and the universe became transparent, which is also when the CMB originated. the mass of iron in a star does not let the star collapse because it is a heavier element, but because at that stage, there is no more fuel to keep fusion going, the energy release and outward pressure of which kept gravity at bay until then.

[@SarthorS]

This video was using the same arguments that I have seen again and again, but in several areas went into more detail than I have come across before so I actually learned some stuff. Thank you.

[@WilliamSnellIAM]

The problem is that even though these Creationist rantings about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and all their other badly misunderstood concepts of science have been long debunked, Creationists continue to spew the same arguments over and over. So you'll doubtlessly see the answers repeated many more times.

[@SarthorS]

willie pepler Your profound ignorance of science does not count as evidence. Maybe you should have read more than one book when you were in school.

[@SarthorS]

The very fact that you use the term evolutionist shows that you have no clue. The correct term is biologist. It also suggests that you reject evolution which means that you reject a majority of all science along with it.

[@WilliamSnellIAM]

willie pepler It's not a matter of 'only science'. Actually, most people have a total lack of understand of what science is (I certainly did before getting involved in creationist debates). Science isn't some entity - it's just a framework for determining predictive models based on observation, testing, and attempts to disprove. Basically a scientist will have a hypothesis (what most people refer to as a theory) about an observation. They test the crap out of it under very strict conditions. If the observations stand up to testing, then it's published for peer review. That means every other scientist (or anyone with the requisite knowledge to repeat the tests) can then try to disprove it. If the paper is not disproved, it might go on to become a scientific theory (the highest level a scientific idea can achieve). Also, your statements about how I'm misinformed and don't know the Bible are just empty statements. They don't include any examples of how I'm misinformed or what about the Bible I don't know. To clarify for you, anything that science doesn't currently know, the answer is as you mentioned, except for the promise of quick answers. Evolution is constantly tested by new fossils that are discovered, and by the mapping of DNA, but so far everything has supported evolution. Arguing this is just a waste of time. If any evidence at all contradicted the theory of evolution, it would be jumped on like a hot brand and picked apart until we either understood the anomaly or decided that evolution was no longer viable as a theory. So far evolution has come up all aces, but like anyone that follows the evidence to reach a conclusion, instead of cherry-picking evidence that seems to support your conclusion, I would accept that evolution was not viable if that was demonstrated by the evidence. I've read the Bible. I know how it was compiled, I know how the Catholic church voted on which bits and pieces to include in the Old Testament, which is why we get references to books of the Bible that don't exist, and references to people that never appear. I have read it in multiple translations (no, not Hebrew). I know that after I read the Bible, my opinion of theists took a nose-dive. The God of the Old Testament, and the stories within, are horrific to the core. That in itself has nothing to do with the existence of God, but it does mean that if God was proved to be real, I would accept the reality, but still refuse to worship him.

[@SarthorS]

My understanding was that early Christian leaders voted on which of the many early Christian writings and gospels were to be included in the new testament, while the old testament was copied with some adjustments and editing from the Jewish scriptures. However my knowledge of this comes from other people rather than investigating it myself, so.... The rest of what William said is accurate and well put. Science is a process, a way of investigation. It is not memorising things from books.It slowly improves our knowledge over time, building upon or correcting what was thought before. It never declares absolute unalterable truth like religion does. When you don't know something, the only honest answer is to admit that you don't know. Using faith and a blanket answer to cover your ignorance is fundamentally dishonest and arrogant.

[@ShadowZZZ]

if the universe needs a cause, then god would also need a cause, so who created the creator? it ends in an infinite regress, and one explains absolutely nothing by assearting the supernatural.

[@bigwitt187]

You're forgetting magic, which explains it all.

[@IronCharioteer]

There's the arrogance, and there's also the very simple question of, "Who created your Creator?". Creationist's profess that everything must have a Creator. Well then the Creator must also have a Creator, and on and on. If your god is "eternal" why then can't the laws of physics that predict the big bang also be eternal? The same goes for the argument from design. It is claimed that humans are so complex that they MUST have been designed (the "find a watch on the beach" argument). Well, if you think humans are complex then god must have a much higher complexity; therefore, by your own argument, god must have a creator, ad infinitum. I expect much circular reasoning and many illogical arguments to follow my post. I invite them :)

[@MrJoeyWheeler]

Some apologists use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to try and find a way of legitimising their special pleading, but they either have to admit they would require god-making gods ad infinitum, or something can be eternal, thus invalidating their requirement for a god.

[@IronCharioteer]

Damian Freeman​ You may like one of my other posts. Its an 5 pt refutation of William Lane Craigs arguments by Dr. Ian Ellis-Jones (Dr. of Philosophy, Law, and Religion). You can check it out on my Google+ page or see it directly at this link. www.slideshare.net/mobile/ianellis-jones/the-five-fallacious-arguments-of-william-lane-craig I really like the first objection. I hadn't noticed that fallacy of equivication in the cosmological argument untill i read this paper. 

[@MrJoeyWheeler]

Andrew Sanchez Thanks for sharing, I'll check it out later

[@TheCJHowes]

All they have is special pleading. "Yeah but God is not subject to physical laws", or "But god in timeless, he didn't need a creator". It's a joke

[@IronCharioteer]

Laurent Jade My favorite example of special pleading is William Lane Craig's answer to the infinite regression, the "uncaused caused". Its funny because he uses it right after asserting that _everything_ must have a cause, except his "uncaused" cause. LOL

[@michaeldougherty6036]

"Miracles" is just a blanket term for a natural reaction that we don't care to explain, or have explained to us. It's comforting in it's simplicity, and relieving to our minds as it requires no further thought to investigate.

[@docdrew87]

I dare a creationist to show me an example of "nothing". In fact, let's put "nothing" in a lab and observe it.

[@rdftreeman]

Would you be willing to donate your brain?

[@docdrew87]

no because that is actually "something" even though you don't think much of my opinions. maybe we could put your prayers to scientific tests. in fact why don't you wish in one hand and shit in the other one and see which one fills up first?

[@rdftreeman]

I just prayed that you would respond to my comments. Since you can't put "nothing" in a lab and observe it, it follows that, the same "nothing" will NEVER produce something.

[@docdrew87]

"nothing" doesn't exist. there is ALWAYS something. even if you can't see it. so therefore, you are right that "nothing" will never produce something. but that also follows that "something" that seems to be produced from "nothing" is actually being produced by "something". like low level energy waves. or maybe the gravity waves that were finally detected by science in the last 24 hours. go to a news source now. it's fascinating news!

[@docdrew87]

no. my body becomes recycled into the Earth. or it becomes mummified and will be researched in hundreds of years. matter cannot be created nor destroyed. my MIND most likely will shut off and fail to exist, but no. i will never become nothing. there is NO SUCH THING as the physical existence of "nothing". can't happen. there's ALWAYS something. sorry, man.

[@david52875]

"nothing" is a quantifier. In second order logic, you might write ∀x: Px to mean "everything is P". In the same way, you could write ∀x: ¬Px to mean _nothing_ is p. Space and vacuum are definitely not nothing, that's not even a coherent statement. In general, saying "x is nothing" is not a coherent statement.

[@ParaSpite]

+david Hmm... "x is nothing" could mean "the definiton of x does not apply to anything in existence". "There is nothing that is x." Is that not a coherent statement? Or is that a forced reinterpretation of the phrase "x is nothing"?

[@Raptor302]

The Big Bang did not "explode" from nothing!!! I don't know how many times this needs to be screamed from the rooftops! It was a singularity! That is not 'nothing', that literally is 'everything'!

[@Arachnoscribe]

They'll just keep pointing to unknown variables as evidence of their deity... a moving of the cosmic goalposts.

[@johnferrera233]

It's somewhat laughable watching evolutionists/ atheist struggle with the concept that something had to come into existence at some point. It's funny watching u guys delay the conversation! As soon as you come up with another theory just be prepared to answer the question: well where did that come from. It's not that we have simple minds and can only come to the conclusion that God did it, it's that THAT is the truth. Yes, in the atheist/evolutionist theory something HAS to come from nothing. I'm sorry that your critically thinking mind can't deduce this. It's called denial, not intelligence.

[@johnferrera233]

It's somewhat laughable watching evolutionists/ atheist struggle with the concept that something had to come into existence at some point. It's funny watching u guys delay the conversation! As soon as you come up with another theory just be prepared to answer the question: well where did that come from. It's not that we have simple minds and can only come to the conclusion that God did it, it's that THAT is the truth. Yes, in the atheist/evolutionist theory something HAS to come from nothing. I'm sorry that your critically thinking mind can't deduce this. It's called denial, not intelligence.

[@Arachnoscribe]

+Mike Friedman: The term 'nothing', when used in a cosmological sense, simply represents an unknown variable. We aren't required to leap to conclusions or opt for 'best fit' that includes anthropomorphic deities. We can, however, examine the evolution of the Judaic deity model and how it changed after close interactions with adherents of Zoroastrianism (Persia). We can provide critiques of flawed arguments, including "Goddidit", "Cuz God" and the entirety of Judeo-Christian/Islamic presuppositionalism.

[@Arachnoscribe]

+Douglas Jordan: You cannot determine what atheists, as individuals, truly love or hate.

[@andystokes8702]

Tom says, at 6.09 ’There are only 3 possibilities of where the universe came from - Number 1 - that it created itself, or Number 2 - that it always existed, or (Number 3) - that it was created. So we have to ask, can something create itself? - No Can nothing create something - No. The law of cause and effect state that for every effect there must be an equal or greater cause and nothing cannot be greater than something. As for always existing, the second law of thermodynamics exposes this as wrong ….’ I’m sure he doesn’t realise what he is saying but this is one of the best arguments to prove that God does not exist; I’m sure his argument was to prove that he does but he has done the exact opposite. ‘Can something create itself? - No, Can nothing create something - No.’ In which case where did God come from? He has already argued that he could not have created himself and it is not possible for nothing to create something so how did he come to be? In order for god to exist there must (by his own reasoning) have been something which caused him to come into existence and whatever or whoever that entity was must have been at least equal to or greater than god. As to the argument that contradicts everything he has said, God has always existed, the second law of thermodynamics exposes this as impossible, by his own reasoning. I just love it when apologists try to use science to disprove science but then refuse to apply the same scientific method to their own theory.

[@sundiver137]

I love it when creotards try to do science to "prove" creationism and blow their own feet off in the process. Watching creotards trying to do science often reminds one of an orangutan trying to play a violin ( with apologies to Honore deBalzac for borrowing that simile).

[@Surfpurzel1]

creationists say that the big bang dont come from nothing and that we cant answer where it came from....but it´s the same with their god, they cant answer where HE came from too...so its almost the same...lol

[@SimenSebastian]

Surfpurzel I think it's reasonable to think the universe can't create itself. Christians (nevermind creationists lol) don't believe in a created God. So it's not really the same. If you're gonna start asking such questions, we'd never be able to explain anything, it would just lead to an infinate regress. If you're gonna go there, I'll simply ask you; the universe created you - who created the universe then? We believe God is the eternal, the necessary being for everything in existance. If the universe had a beginning, I think it requiers a cause from outside of time and space. You could always say, "we don't know, so we just hope we will be able to figure it out one day", but I think it's pretty obvious it was a mystery. The same applies to the fine tuning of the universe and the origin of life on earth. There are very good reasons to believe in God.

[@god9513]

The Reasonable Christian Once again the theory of "idunnosogodmustafukkendunnit" prevails .... Praise be to the AllMightBe Magic Man, and may the blessed Bull shite long, strong and straight.

[@Surfpurzel1]

"If you're gonna start asking such questions, we'd never be able to explain anything," but that is the only way to find the truth in it! so i should not question things like that, i should only believe? thats not how it works in my way ;) btw, i am evolutionist, so i know that this all developed natutraly over a looong time to this "perfection" The Reasonable Christian

[@LM112233445566]

The Reasonable Christian Nope, wrong. The "Universe" did not "create" me or you or anyone. I was conceived in the womb of my mother. Natural biological processes that have been scientifically proven to work. Fine tuning? The problem with many Christians is that they make god look like an incompetent, psychopathic imbecile. What fine tuning are we talking about? Do you know for certain there is no other life out there? Look around you man..there is so much damn imperfection around if this is what your "god" is then I would not hire him to do my laundry. If he (why can your god not have a vagina, or maybe because "he" was concocted by misogynistic desert nomads) needed to create something, maybe he could have tried to create things "perfect" don't you think? "If you're gonna start asking such questions, we'd never be able to explain anything, it would just lead to an infinate regress" That is EXACTLY right. Therein lies one of the greatest fallacies of your thinking. If you assume universe as created, then indeed your creator also needs a cause. You cannot just say "My sky daddy was fo-evvaaaa" and be done with it. All said and done though, if you look deeper, this is a struggle for power. nothing more. The Church is an evil org that was de-fanged and humiliated time and again since the renaissance. It has lost its power (and rightly so) to reason. Those that cannot cope with this new reality will lash out anyway they can. Try to employ theatrics and nonsensical wordplay to deceive those that don't know any better.

[@if6was929]

The Reasonable Christian "There are very good reasons to believe in God" Who is the judge of what is a "good reason"? You? Your religion?

[@MGForums]

It would appear that the more religious you are, the more smug and dumber you become (even visibly). Why on Earth has society allowed this charade to continue for so long? Imagine how abysmal this world would be if we all followed the "rules" set in a poorly executed religious scripture, it's already bad enough with the few that do.

[@ilovegod7539]

sorry bro but it is a fact whether you believe it or not that Christianity has done way more good than harm to societies. as a group they have been the most charitable helpful people on the planet. plus I value Freedom if you don't I feel bad for you I would never say that your kind should be done away with just because you annoy me. I apologize for encounters you've had with mean people but unfortunately like every belief there's a lot of seeds that landed on bad ground.

[@zemorph42]

@@ilovegod7539 Demonstrate your claims. What good has Christianity done that outweighs the tyrrany, bloodshed, death and destruction committed by Christians in 2000 years? Not to mention the stubborn, relentless opposition to science and progress and promotion of ignorance and superstition that is still harming innocent people and society now.

[@ilovegod7539]

zemorph42 OK so first you need to understand one very important thing if you are going to say the Catholics are Christians then you do not have the intellectual capacity to have this conversation. They do literally everything Jesus said not to do. This is who has driven most of the terrible things that supposed Christians have done. That is not Christianity Christianity Jesus himself said not to harm anyone to live peaceably among everyone as much it is is possible and to give your enemy food and the shirt off your back. So to lump idiots in the same category as Jesus is intellectually dishonest. Most major charitable organizations are Christian most of the generosity spread around the world are due to Christians it is not Muslims helping people from starvation in fact Muslims start their own people in their own countries. If you wanna know the fax all you have to do is look it up. The bottom line is Western society has done more good for humanity than anything else and Western society gets its values directly from the Bible.

[@ilovegod7539]

zemorph42 what are you talking about where Christianity denies science. Again your intellectual capacity is question. Are you talking about evolution because there are tons of scientist to say that it is not provable it is still called a theory for a reason and yes I understand what a scientific theory is it does not mean that it is not questioned. It simply means it can’t be proven false according to them. However there are many scientists who feel like it has major flaws. Instead it is science who has chosen to say I will have faith in what I see as long as it does not point to a God. There are many quotes by people who have lead the way in these sciences that would prove that they themselves refuse to acknowledge a God. Again all you have to do is look stuff up instead of blindly following your faith. While there are many Christians who blindly follow God there are many of us who question everything and when I question everything I have major problems with Secular humanism in the science that they use to back it. They are the ones who will have the world government and who will kill whoever gets in their way it is not Christians who are going to do that I’m sorry to bust your unenlightened bubble But Christians want freedom and peace to prevail. Christians want to coexist with people who do not believe what we believe in hopes that love will change their mind. There are many people who are confused and go down the wrong path or spread hatred in the name of Jesus these people are not the same as Christians. For example abortions I can’t stand the idea of murdering an unborn baby however I would never stand out in front of an abortion clinic and tell people they are going to hell this is not my job nor is it my right to judge them like that that is up to Jesus himself the one who was able to live the perfect life and to gain the Right to judge us all. Instead I feel very bad for people who make this decision I do not think there any worse than me I am a sinner strictly saved by grace if it was not for Jesus I would go to hell and deserve it.

[@zemorph42]

@@ilovegod7539 No true scottsman and distorted strawman fallacies of evolution, science and the term "scientific theory". Your intellectual honesty is in question because of that. I'm tired of trying to correct intellectually dishonest misrepresentations that you know are dishonest. The federal government is filled with Christians who are _right now_ doing what you claim Christians will not do, and I am *not* talking about Catholics. They want a theocratic dictatorship and are attempting to make our country into one, against the will of the people.

[@Iamtopcoach]

Ignorance is not the equivalent of arrogance. They have no understanding of their ignorance so cannot make the judgements about science you credit them with. To their limited understanding, and ability to understand, what they are saying is simple and self evident. Most would have no concept of the amount of learning required to master cutting edge physics, so undervaluing it has noting to do with their perceived superiority. Their arrogance is evident in the belief of 1 to 1 dialog with the most important entity in existence (albeit imagined) ar·ro·gant (r-gnt) adj. 1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

[@kawaiimercenary]

***** me, i think they're arrogant because they will not accept that they are wrong.

[@Iamtopcoach]

freenintendocaprisun how can they accept that they are wrong if they do not have the intellectual capacity to make that determination? They are forcefully told emotionally believable pap and then warned of the dangers of persuasive and questioning 'devils'. Remember, they believe in magic, rational laws and reason is thereby excluded.

[@johnshannon9656]

If there is something that we can name and describe as a "vacuum", then it is a "something". There is no true "nothing", it would in effect be a "something" (see Plato and Spinoza). The way to get around this is to think of the quantum field as a plenum (see Buddhism) within which the potential for manifestation (actuation) exists (see Aristotle). In other words, there is no "nothing". All of reality is the eternal existence of the quantum field and what can appear out of it, with that appearance (phenomena) wholly dependent upon subjective consciousness to cognize it (see Husserl).

[@rednidedni3875]

+King Crocoduck Hey, I have seen a guy called MrIntelligentDesign try to debate you. Did he actually PM you and go through with it? Because I tried to debate him on his channel and he is now straight up detleting my comments because I "was too lazy" to "research" by buying his books.

[@CJ-rf9jm]

That's the crux of it. He like the rest of them is a grifter doing it sell books / videos / lecture tour etc. If they qould quit with the BS n instead tried doing something useful instead, even if they only invest a fraction of their former effort into it we'd all be a lot further ahead.

[@rednidedni3875]

CJ99 Nah, but only because there are not a lot of people who try this.

[@jefftheriault7260]

@@CJ-rf9jm Grifters building a meal ticket is the crux of every organized religion. Some just have more tradition/momentum than others.

[@FeelingTehRUSH]

he teared up abit with passion at 7:43 lol math :')

[@KingCrocoduck]

lol I wish I was passionate enough to tear up. I was actually stifling a yawn and was too lazy to re-record

[@johnnyutah1001]

Awesome video bro. I say that as a former evangelist.

[@ThePrimordialBeing]

I sincerely congratulate to your shift.

[@evananderson-navarro6142]

King Crocoduck I've never watched any of your videos before, but just for explaining this and debunking his questions so thoroughly you have earned yourself a sub! Nice Job.

[@DonaldKronos]

For those who missed it, here's a quote of the funniest and most inaccurate definition of evolution I've ever come across. (Originally posted in a thread started in response to this video) The person who posted this straw-man argument definition tells me it's the same exact thing as my definition (accumulation of change) which makes it even funnier. :) ==Quote of +MaximusArurealius : "THE IRREFUTABLE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION: From the primordial soup a single cell organism appeared out of chemicals and became complex. It soon became a fish and then grew legs. It crawled out on land and began walking around. Soon after it became a mammal and then a monkey. It began growing taller and became a man who then became an ACLU lawyer. He uses pictures of monkeys growing taller to prove evolution. Please don't insult our intelligence by telling us it's not monkeys turning into humans." ==End of Quote== My immediate response: LOL! I would have done a proper Google Plus mention here of the poor pathetic attention starved author of that definition (assuming he or she didn't copy it from someone else) if Google Plus would have let me, but I did the closest it would allow me to. This MaximusArurealius person must be terribly abused, from what I can tell, and seems to enjoy all the attention he or she can get, regardless of whether it's good or bad attention, so please understand when they remind you constantly that they are OWNED or PWNED or POWNED that their PWNER is apparently very neglectful and seems to abandon them on a regular basis, which would explain the frequent surrender cry of "HAR" as if imagining being a barbarian at war, begging to be captured. As pathetic as it is, I thought re-sharing its humorous extremely inaccurate definition of evolution here would serve as an act of pity.

[@BatMandor]

Lol, that is basic biology... Kids, that's why school is important!

[@Gericho49]

Such profound fallacious fables from yet another feeble, faceless fraud obsessed with the God he doesnt believe in. . Most honest truth-seekers should be asking themselves *what evidence should we expect to discover if God exists and what might suggest he doesnt?* If mindless matter is the only game in town, shouldnt we expect to find a lawless lifeless chaos rather than the miracle that Einstein said we do observe? Why should the universe follow an incredibly complex set of universal metaphysical immutable laws and that such laws are founded on ABSTRACT mathematics (Galileo). Should we see evidence for design (Davies) fine-tuning (Penrose, Hoyle, Penzias) Theyre not saying "God did it, are they?" Most of them are at best like PCW Davies agnostic who say such evidence is overwhelming. They are merely following the evidence where it leads. What's your excuse? Ok people, if u want to be an atheist I suggest u don't follow the evidence where it leads, just commit to a worldview that says mindless matter is the only game in town! It is the unwavering commitment to *"philosophy of scientific materialism no matter how counter intuitive".* In fact the finitude of past time demands "We are ALL creationists"!* So for all the self defined, semi evolved YT apes and other feeble faceless frauds who hide behind multiple pseudonyms, butcher videos and insert their own smug, mocking titles. The *proof of God's existence is expressed in a couple of simple words:* *The finitude of past time* aka ex nihilio Creation and defined by *abstract math E =mc^2.* Yes, when Time T = 0 so does matter and energy, which confirms the universally accepted fact that all time, space and matter had an absolute beginning. Logically proven by the impossibility of an infinite regress of past physical events or states. Unless u want to resort to the absurdity that everything came from nothing, i.e. Existence came from non existence u are inevitably forced to embrace an immaterial cause beyond space and time. Now if u want a logical presentation of why that cause is personal and omniscient accept the premise that the physical realm can *not* exist outside of time nor creates itself. If atheism is true, matter in some form has always existed, so here's the challenge *A Nobel prize awaits anyone who can nominate an actual infinite in the physical realm either time, space or matter.* Come on now, give it your best short! *Creation* is the universal belief that 1) the the past must logically be finite 2) everything physical being temporal (exists in space and time), must have been created ex nihilio. Now did it all come from absolutely nothing, from a law like gravity (as Hawking suggests) or from a cause behind space time and matter, u choose? No wonder *Dawkins makes me embarrassed to call myself an Atheist". Now who said that?

[@deadmanssuit]

Excellent video. Thank you.

[@ThinkOutSideBXxs110]

The biggest problem with his arrogant statement. Is that, this guy needs to first establish a "God". This guy has never a stab list a God, or a so called creator. Even if we get to the point of establishing a so-called "God". Then, we need to find out which God it belongs to A particular belief system. And so far the guy hasn't even a stab list anything except an argument from ridiculous and stupid ignorance within his part.

[@kimmidoesdallas1]

+Think Outsidethebox there is only one creator God.

[@ThinkOutSideBXxs110]

kim scott That is a argument from ignorance. Not an argument From verified scientific facts. Again you didn't get anything that my statement was talking about. You have not establish what you were talking about, nor have you verified through any kind of scientific measurement on this particular sky daddy you're talking about. You're just making up your version of the tooth fairy but you're not verify what you're talking about. Again, who are rally talking about. And how do you know that the name of this is called "God. You do realize that the word God is a made up word created by humans. You may find out at the end it is not even call that, therefore your statement only shows your ignorance in your own arrogance. So you're not giving me anything except a bunch of Word games of BS

[@kimmidoesdallas1]

Think Outsidethebox psalm 14:1 says that a FOOL says in his heart that there is no God. i would rather live and believe in God and die and find out i was wrong than to live as an atheist and die and find out i was wrong.

[@ThinkOutSideBXxs110]

kim scott You rather believe in things through gullibility. You have no truth to verify anything to be a factual truth through any kind of evidence. You have no truth to verify anything to be a factual truth through any kind of evidence. Except you believe in a imaginary friend that your parents and religion has imposed on you. Let's make this very clear the God of the Bible is one of the most evil, and sickest dictators I have ever read. The God of the Bible is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children. Therefore, you decided to pick a God that is one of the most evilest dictators that is 100 trillion times worse than any monster that's ever lived or I read about in any book. And you pick this form of spiritual neo-Nazi therefore, you decided to pick a god that is one of the most evilest dictators that is 100 trillion times worse than any monster that's ever lived or I have read about in any book. And you pick this form of spiritual Neo-Nazism of religious hate. And this is based off of your own gullibility because you're too lazy to actually read science and you don't even realize where your Bible actually came from which it was stolen in plagiarize from other Old ancient mythology's. I would never support to God you pray too. Because your God is an evil monster. Maybe I have a better Ideal or should I say a much Better system instead of your sick belief system of hate.

[@kimmidoesdallas1]

Think Outsidethebox you are a very deceived person. Philippians 2:11 says that everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord. and that includes you. whats really sad is that u believe all the lies you have been fed and yet reject truth. Richard Dawkins claimed that all genes form a perfect nested hierarchy. This is simply a lie. and that's just one of many. did u know he came here to glenrose texas to do a documentary on the dino and human footprints only he left out the human footprints in his documentary. why would he hide that? yet, you don't get mad at him for lying to you. instead you get mad at God whom you have terribly misrepresented big time.

[@samuelrobinson1992]

It really annoys me that other Atheists say that you have to respect people's faiths, no you don't!! If a guy in the street walked up to you and said "I believe in flying pony pedophiles"... Does that mean I have to respect him?

[@devb9912]

I respect people right to believe whatever they want, but what they believe holds no special privilege. Once someone voices their belief it is open to criticism.

[@GodBoredWas]

I gotta admit, I have a bit of a mancrush on you, smart and your voice is good. what will I tell my wife...

[@hippocritic]

One of the best critiques of creationist bullshit that I've seen.

[@KingCrocoduck]

You should see part 2 :)

[@hippocritic]

King Crocoduck haha. Duly noted. I hadn't even noticed there was a part 2, so thanks for the heads up.

[@1900stratoliner]

You are easily impressed.

[@hippocritic]

1900stratoliner It's got nothing to do with being impressed. It's about pointing out the arrogance of the creationist in a way that even they can't fail to understand. Because, like trying to explain evolution to Ray Comfort, it can seem an impossible task sometimes.

[@hippocritic]

willie pepler Gullible? You don't even know me, you fool.

[@rdftreeman]

Something comes from nothing! I call bs

[@Co1010z]

Why? He explained it thoroughly.

[@rdftreeman]

Ya, he explained that he "believes" that things pop in and out of existence. Only intellectual gullible naive people would believe such nonsense. That has got to be the stupidest explaination of the causation of the Universe and existence. Let me know when anything pops up right before your eyes out of nowhere and nothing. Illogical stupidity, really it is.

[@SheWasAlmost18]

rdftreeman Lol, you say it's stupid and illogical but provide absolutely no evidence against it. How very ARROGANT of you

[@rdftreeman]

The evidence is reality. Something does NOT come from nothing. No explanation needed

[@SheWasAlmost18]

You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make it true.

[@mamamheus7751]

Watching again (while hoping that you'll soon have the time to upload another one day 😊). I keep finding that YT has deleted my like, so I must watch you and my other favourite KZbinrs regularly to make sure that it's liked again. Oh the pain and suffering I go through! (I can't afford to become a patron, but to help I do let any adverts run, but not if they're not 25 minutes long. Yes, I had a pro-fundie ad of about that length once. Much as I love your site and admire you, KC, I hope you will understand that I cannot sit through that! I could have made and drunk a coffee before it's completed.) I am positive that this has been brought up before by others, but it's my turn to ponder. If these creatards are so against science (in its pure form - ie not cherry-picked, misunderstood, misrepresented, etc etc etc by them), why do they constantly quote "the Second Law of Thermodynamics"? I've yet to see one of them use it in a 100% correct context, or with full understanding of it. I'm not a scientist and wouldn't presume to attempt to use it to "prove a point" _unless and until_ I was absolutely certain that I would be right to do so. Then I'd probably run it past one of my kids (he's a real scientist) or one of my scientist friends before I even typed it up! (That's just the title being written within an argument, let alone dissecting it to show why I would be right to use it in that context). I *do* have a reasonable layman's understanding of it, but only enough that I can grasp what you and your cohorts on YT mean when you use it in a discussion or explanation. I cannot begin to guess how often even *I* have cringed on hearing it being used badly by these hypocritical antiscience skid marks!

[@TheBtak13]

Am sorry, but did he say "the mass of the iron causes the star to collapse." I always thought it was due to the fact the Iron is the first element the takes more energy to produce than the energy it releases, and if a star cannot produce energy to hold up its mass, then gravity wins and the star eventually collapses.

[@KingCrocoduck]

You're correct- I believe I annotated in a revision when this video first came out

[@TheBtak13]

King Crocoduck Nice job by the way. The end of the video was my favorite part. It truly describes the arrogance of creationist. Which is: How could they use such simple minded arguments and claim to know the origins of the universe, while at the same time Physicist who spend their entire lives doing research are willing to admit, I DON'T KNOW.

[@jacobcluff6382]

+King Crocoduck, around 2:53: Its not really the efficiency of iron absorbing energy either. Throughout a stars life, its a constant battle between gravity pushing the star together and gas and radiation pressures pushing it outwards. Only really massive stars can actually start fusing iron together. The thing is, all the elements lighter than iron release energy when fusing them together, and the elements heavier than and including iron actually take energy. So, instead of releasing the energy, which helps the star stay in a state of equilibrium, it starts taking energy away, this process is the ultimate cause of a core-collapse super nova. After the super nova clears, the stellar body is either a neutron star or a black hole (if the star is massive enough) The smaller mass stars have a much less violent death. When they run out of hydrogen in their core, the fusion rate diminishes, the star starts to collapse, the core heats up from the gravitational energy being converted to thermal energy and some helium would start burning in a shell. The shell burning causes the star to inflate (well past its main-sequence size) and it just isn't massive enough to hold onto the outer layers of the stellar atmosphere. The process is unstable and the outer stellar atmosphere is kind of just shed off. The stellar carcass left over is a white dwarf star. The shell burning process is how the star transitions between burning heavier and heavier elements (up to iron). What about all the elements we have heavier than iron? They come from supernova explosions, The energy released in supernova explosions is what fuels the burning of all the elements heavier than iron. Since only a small fraction of stars are massive enough to go super-nova, the elements produced in this process are rare. Also, the more massive the star, the heavier elements it makes during its life-time. This is why, generally speaking, the heavier the element, the more rare it is.

[@24687232]

No need to be a student of physics to be aware that creationism does not comply with any rigor, is based on an arbitrary conclusion. Anyone can refute it asking: How do we know that the creator is Yahveh Elohim,? And if it was Odin and his peers? If mother earth Gea engendered by itself to Uranus? And why not an advanced race of aliens? I just have a question for a physicist: eventually you can see the Big bang or not can be? Your videos are excellent.

[@AndrewJens]

The ending (from 6:50) of this video is excellent because it gives a detailed account of why the Dunning Kruger effect is so disastrous for Creationists.

[@DeafBlindHunter]

And were did energy come from if there was nothing prior. ? The narrators authoritarian condescending emotion sees no point in debate. More to the point his argument is all theory. Still unproven.Another point is , was science in existence before there were scientist? To this day scientist cannot tell us how energy was created only show the effects .

[@bigwitt187]

Either you didn't make it past the 5th grade or English isn't your first language, at least I hope not. You have no idea what you're talking about. A theory is the highest level that an explanation can reach in science. There is no such thing as a proven theory, proof pertains to mathematics only. Science, as in the study of the natural world, has been in existence longer than homo sapiens have, since something as simple as observing the effects of fire is science. As for your last sentence, what's your point? There are lots of things we don't know, but pretending that God explains all of them is nothing but an assertion.

[@Skidwell19]

He doesn't claim there was nothing prior. He says he doesn't know yet. A successful theory in science means it has held up to every test and potential falsification to date. So what you're basically saying is "More to the point, his argument has never been falsified to this day". And to claim it is "Unproven" completely ignores the mathematical proofs that are behind the theory you criticize.

[@joserserrano1306]

Concepts are abstract. Virtual or otherwise, whether The Void or a vacuum, the most rudimentary concept in geometry is Distance-at minimum two points of reference. Points of reference = Information.

[@babler11]

It's not the mass of the star that causes a supernova, the energy it takes to fuse atoms into iron is greater than the energy that is released when it forms. That causes the star to collapse in on itself then rebound back as an explosion.

[@ah2528]

Hello Mr. Duck, I'm viewing some of you videos (more so these with actual science talk, not the attack videos) and I do like a lot of the info you provide. If you would I would like to make an observation that may form into a question. This eternal energy that we know exists that creates/created everything, I believe many science-based creationists believe is God. I will give you my opinion on this front because I would tend agree with this. Honestly, I look to the vast intellect of humanity and our potential for the reason of an intelligent energetic creative force, or God. I do not at all believe that there was no intent for what we see around us. Forgive me for not leaving a book-length comment but the way I see it is that, with the application of consciousness, that this eternal energetic body IS as I would say "obviously intelligent." I really doubt that we can look at the complexity of life and say that the energetic platform everything comes from is not intelligent. That really seems insulting. And I would NOT say that this energy is NOTHING, that I would consider false. Nothing is simply the wrong word, indeed energy IS everything. To me this whole creation vs. science argument is predicated on the overall argument of "intelligent creator" or "etheric energy coalition," or basically are we the result OF INTENT or not. I hope these two ideas make sense, it's hard to think of another way to put it. In my life the only thing I allow myself to get a little arrogant about is the fact I love to learn, and I have a good process for doing so. This drive FOR intelligence is I sincerely believe is a byproduct of creation/life itself being one big intelligent mass itself, to put it simply. Intelligence irradiates everywhere to me (even though this doesn't really reflect in modern society lol.) I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[@janrdoh]

So dear creationist if something can't be created from nothing the same must apply to your god because surely it had a creator ,god couldn't have just always been there .

[@doctorwebman]

1:30 It is actually not true that matter is a condensed form of energy. Matter has energy, but it is not made of it. Energy is defined in physics as 'the ability to do work'. Nothing is made of the ability to do work. Matter has mass energy that can be converted to other kinds of energy (e=mc2), but that is not the same thing as being made of it.

[@hyperw0rp]

I wouldn't say "intuition is meaningless." It's the faculty we use to create hypotheses. That's the very beginnings of all scientific theories. You start by saying, "I think this might be so, for reasons I can't fully explain," then you move on to testing your hypothesis. Intuition is what makes us human.

[@OrkarIsberEstar]

one thing though, the laws of thermodynamics only are true for a closed system but as i understand scientists now believe that the universe is not a closed system but through black holes energy can permamamently leave the system and dark energy can actually let energy "pop into existance"

[@africanus7272]

"While the philosophical definition might be easy to come up with, we are dealing with a physical world, so our definition of 'nothing' has to be concordant with physical reality." This statement reflects a belief that all reality is physical. However, this physical world requires a beginning. Thus, when discussing the origin of the physical world, there is no logical necessity for the definition of "nothing" to be "concordant with physical reality." The question is, what imparted reality to the physical world?

[@heckingbamboozled8097]

We don't know. That's the answer. Nothing wrong with being unsure, and there is no reason to fill that spot in with God

[@ninthring2602]

I occasionally wonder about those few instants _(pico/nano/micro seconds, etc.)_ after the expansion of the universe from the singularity, when matter began to form, with everything still fairly compacted into a hot, dense state. Wouldn't there be *Time Dilatation* effects from the vast mass of matter (& gravity) confined in such a still tiny area (of perhaps only a few cubic kilometres)? How long *IS 10⁻⁴ SECONDS* - when a second is subjected to such immense *Time Dilation?* Or are there other effects (specific to the *Big Bang* / *Cosmic Inflation* ) which counter the gravitic effects of vast masses of matter in this context? (Or more likely, given my knowledge of physics is somewhat limited, I've misunderstood something about the science.)

[@Dejawolfs]

lol, i like how the creationist first says something can't come from nothing, and then goes on to say that quantum fluctuations is something coming from nothing.

[@Gericho49]

Actually Krauss says quantum fluctuations *are* nothing. so we are all CREATIONISTS. We all must accept everything came from nothing in the finitude of past time The only plausible explanation is that a cause outside of space/time created existence from non existence. You do understand the concepts of eternal, non contingency, immaterial, causality, infinite regress, right? Hawking in embracing the contingency of matter declaring a law such as gravity created the universe out of nothing, which is worse than magic, At least we have the magician and the hat.. Go figure (if your old enough)

[@TorontoBoi]

whoah, whoah, whoah.....did you just admit that "Energy is eternal" when in practically every single "atheist vs. Christian debate," the atheists always *arrogantly* proclaim that "no credible scientists believe in 'the eternal'???" I'm saving this video. Thanks bro for your honesty.

[@KingCrocoduck]

Who exactly said that, and in which debate? I'm not here to defend atheism- but I find it difficult to believe that someone like Dawkins or Krauss (especially Krauss) would say something like that.

[@highdough2712]

I love how you (apparently) watched an entire video with lots of different information and that was basically saying that things are far more complicated than creationists like to say, and you decide to disregard everything else except for one quote from it that you think you can use in an argument with atheists. Two things I get from that: One, you obviously didn't understand ANYTHING he said. Two, the irony is overwhelming.

[@chefjoesplaylists2565]

The problem is context. "Eternal" does not mean unchanging. The Creationists "God" does not change. Energy, in general terms, is eternal, but energy *as we know it*, has only existed for 13.7 Billion Years.

[@BigDaddyCruz]

That, "facile simple minded" statement obviously went completely over your head. So much irony.

[@chefjoesplaylists2565]

BigDaddyCruz Addressed to whom?

[@Droldjoe]

If "nothing" can be measured within the matrix of some physical, temporal, or even philosophical system then it goes beyond paradox and enters into the realm of the substantive, meaning it's not nothing. The very fact that nothing is by definition unknowable actually instills in me a sense of wonder, and dare I say it, faith.

[@gandalfdegrey]

Hi, I just subscribed to your channel today because I saw another video of yours, "So you want a degree in physics". I have to say the tips you gave are really practical, and you gave me a very good overview of the physics degree. Now I just saw this video, and I really admire that you have the determination to analyse everything a guy said, and explain point by point why they are not correct. Although I am not remotely as good as you (just graduated from high school), I have tried to reason with creationists using the knowledge I have acquired from reading books. If there's one thing I've learnt from them, it is that they never even listen to what you say, and that anything they try to use against you is just even more effective used against them, like "who created energy then?" is easier to answer than "who created God then?", which they'll answer with bullshit like "God doesn't need a creator". The point is, arguing with them is really pointless, and I think you mentioned a very good point, that is they use intuitive logic to make arguments, which isn't applicable to many things. But still, it is enjoyable seeing that they don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, which makes you feel superior to them. I appreciate your video, it gave me a few new ideas of how to argue against a creationist!

[@bugzbunny109]

Study physics bud!

[@gandalfdegrey]

I'm going to, and I hope that I can be smart like this guy

[@bugzbunny109]

Trust me, you will lol. Physics forces you to be your very best. I just graduated, and I think majoring in physics was probably my best life decision.

[@gandalfdegrey]

+bugzbunny109 glad to hear that, and thanks man

[@55Quirll]

KC, thank you for a very good and informative video. You and AronRa make such good videos and explain your points so as for us, who don't have the specific education you may have, have learned something knew. Again thank you very much and may you stay well and safe.

[@CricketyChris]

"energy is eternal" hmm think about that... The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. so if energy cannot be created from within the universe then how did the energy that is here get here?

[@KingCrocoduck]

That's exactly the point. It can't be created, so it wasn't created, so it's always existed, so it's eternal.

[@CricketyChris]

King Crocoduck then your God is the universe. or the "energy" that makes up our universe is your God by definition. I think is pretty arrogant to assume the universe is eternal with no proof.

[@KingCrocoduck]

Shoehorning the word "God" into the gaps closed by my explanations will not put us on even ground. Nothing that I've presented here even remotely resembles a religion. You acknowledged yourself that energy can't be created or destroyed. From this, it follows naturally and inevitably that energy *wasn't* created, that it's always existed in some form or another. And the word used to describe such a state of affairs is "eternal."

[@CricketyChris]

King Crocoduck so you believe that the universe expanded from??? go take a look at the real world instead of the theoretical world. trust proven facts, not theories based on imagination or stupidity of humans who were bored at there job

[@robertturffs3596]

Chris Padgett I don't know is the most honest answer you'll ever get and respect the person decent enough to avoid magical explanations. at least then they respect your intellect enough to not produce lies, in order to placate the question.

[@YenzQu]

Great video, but it's not the irons capability to absorb energy either but that it can't fuel the nuclear fusion. 2:52 Gravity and heat keep the star stable. The heat of the fusion increases the pressure in the star's core. It inflates it and keeps it from collapsing. When the fuel runs out, there is nothing that keeps gravity from making the core collapse. This produces a great amount of heat blows the rest of the star away.

[@dimondwoof]

This video is AWESOME! It is exactly what I've been thinking about but was unable to really concisely quantify. Thanks so much for this clear explanation! This is the first of your videos that I've watched and subscribed to your channel before it was even complete. Keep up the good fight to help logic and reason defeat delusional superstition!

[@clemstevenson]

A creationist trying to overthrow science with magic, by claiming that magic is the only scientific explanation.

[@AnimusPrime87]

I've watched almost all of your videos. I commented on one, and you responded. How am I only now just realizing that I haven't subscribed to you? I have since corrected my error.

[@E.J.Crunkleton]

OMG. Your breakdown of the big bang is very clear and full of detail. Awesome work!

[@jacobl6572]

We are not talking only about the physical realm. Reality is not dependant on anything physical. The physical (3d format) is only a building block of given constraints just a step higher than a 2D format.

[@lwil9252]

I would like to think I have a better than average grasp other subject of the Big Bang and physics in general as I have studied it formally and informally. I love the way you loaded up the video with super technical jargon. Any reasonable person with an intact ego would be humbled. And you have to love the way creationists say " it just can't happen " when they want/need something to be untrue. And so often they have no knowledge or grasp of the subject at hand

[@KA4TRUTH]

Within the comments here is a classical cross conversation with four contributors, I would like to thank William Snell and SarthorS for a well thought out, Reasoned and Intelligent view of the truth. Your discourse with Willie Pepler and Jason Wills, who showed the classic Religious "baffle um with bullshit" defense to you had me laughing my ass off when they started to talk to one another at how it was impossible to talk to those that simply couldn't understand the complexity of their argument. Also thank you King Crocoduck for a fine and inspiring video, I look forward to seeing more of your work.

[@KamEt-69]

Can someone explain why energy is eternal by the 1st law of thermodynamic and gets unusable by the second law?

[@KingCrocoduck]

Ignoring your argument from authority and the irrelevance of theism to science, here's another quote from Einstein that's a lot more straightforward and unambiguous: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." Very appropriate quote in this situation.

[@jamesmaseobrown]

Creationist such as him are very good at sounding as though they know what they're talking about. That includes their arrogant confident and self-righteous attitude. I say all that to say this: It's all an argument from ignorance, for the sole purpose to deceive the ignorant, in order to maintain their ignorance.

[@brpierce]

Moreover, the flagellum is a fine case of moving goalposts. Behe initially stated that it was impossible to remove any of the components of the flagellum while maintaining a functional system. When it was pointed out that this could, in fact, be done, Creationists shifted the goalposts to "You can't prove that the flagellum evolved from the TTSS! It doesn't count!"

[@512TheWolf512]

Why can't we explain the black hole's singularity as a solid extremely condensed energy? Like a huuuuge elementaty particle that has extreme gravitational influence and can shatter other elementary particles to make it a part of itself?

[@ih9649]

We know very little about the way black holes work, it's true, but thought experiments have to be rooted in that tiny portion of stuff we can understand. I would hazard a guess that such a simple explanation, while elegant, likely doesn't quite mesh with something we know, which is why phycists don't use it. Or, maybe nobody thought of it yet. Study physics; try to make that explanation work! You may become the next big name in science! ^^

[@intermedianguitarsguild4482]

even though i don't believe in creationism, i don't think that having blanket statements regarding creationists as arrogant or ignorant is fair, its their opinion. even though i have met a lot of creationists who seem completely void of reason i have met a lot of atheists who condescendingly insult creationists. we all think our beliefs are correct, its just attempting to force your beliefs down someone elses throat that bothers me, expressing ones beliefs is not a problem. this is somewhat prejudging creationists.

[@lesliewhite6832]

If there were a god, I wonder just how scared "he'd" be that his creation (mankind) is rapidly overtaking him in just about every field.

[@rdftreeman]

Where did the vacuum come from? If a vacuum still exist, then you have not arrived at "nothing", but rather you still have something. Logic

[@royvincent9250]

bringing up the second law of thermo-dynamics in this case is saying that the universe is a closed system when we know its expanding therefore cant be

[@joehinojosa8314]

I appreciate your description of science. Nice graphics too. Eternal Energy "May the FORCE be with You,Jedi."

[@doubtingthomas1278]

I understand your frustration trying to respond to nonsense. Often it takes longer to explain science to someone than the duration of their attention span. When they spew forth a series of unjustified claims and then expect you to respond to all of them, it is unfair. An articulate response takes time. Making more claims without justifying them doesn't. Aside from my empathy, I will ask where you got the imagery of quantum fluctuations. It's the most impressive visual representation I've yet seen. So, where did you get them?

[@brpierce]

"And it's ridiculous to call our classification "arbitrary"." It's absolutely arbitrary. Allow me to quote Roger Sanders, one of the leading practicing Baraminologists: "The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans."

[@brpierce]

"Reason and Faith are two different things, but they are in no way mutually exclusive." If your faith is subject to being discarded based on the dictates of reason, how strong was your faith? If your faith is not subject to being discarded based on the dictates of reason, how much weight does reason truly hold?

[@WisdomVendor1]

Since temperature and heat both are a function of atomic motion, how is it that before matter is even formed that heat or temperature either one could exist? What exactly is it that is so hot before protons and electrons have even formed?

[@PressEnter42]

I never understood that argument. So the idea that something small could build up into something big makes no sense. But an endlessly powerful, thinking, all knowing, being who defies the laws of physics and who has always been just being there. That's more likely? It's like they say a car can't just pop out of nothing. Then how can a God just pop out of nothing

[@richardlackey3347]

I'm a facile and simple minded lay person myself; but aren't infinities examples of a failure in the mathematics and representative of a shortcoming in our understanding of a phenomenon? I don't mention this as an argument against science or support for creationism. I just feel that it needs to be embraced as part of honest intellectualism. ie it's ok to say "I don't know". This is something that isn't pointed out enough to the faith heads. It's the counterpoint to their arrogance.

[@cliotise]

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe by Rich Deem Richard L. Deem received his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976. He has authored and co-authored a number of studies, included several areas of molecular biology and genetics, immunology, inflammatory bowel disease, natural killer cells, and infectious diseases. In addition, he has presented his work at a number of national and international scientific meetings. Introduction Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article: "I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1) The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Here is what they say: The quotes Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2) George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3) Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4) Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5) Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6) John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7) George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8) Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9) Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10) Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11) Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12) Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13) Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14) Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity. Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17) Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God - the design argument of Paley - updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18) Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19) Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20) Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21) Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22) Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23) Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24) Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25) Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26) Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)

[@iainmuir6116]

Without any real understanding of all of the above, even if they had been able to disprove many peoples painstakingly well thought out and documented life's work with something they thought up making tea that morning, why would that make their preferred alternative any more viable?

[@konstantingeist3587]

An "object" is a pattern of photons our brain detects and can categorize into a class. "Nothing" in the usual sense is basically when the brain fails to detect any patterns and hence it concludes "there's nothing there". However, a lack of identifiable patterns by the brain doesn't mean there can be total, absolute inexistance. I think it's quite possible that on the fundamental level, there's no "nothing". It's merely a human construct, a play of words. The idea of "existance of nothing" is contradictory in itself, "nothing" can't exist by its own definition, if you can say "hey, that's NOTHING" then it's already "something"; therefore "nothing" does not exist.

[@thenorup]

Though I don't agree with Tom on pretty much anything, the 2. law of thermodynamics, DOES mean that the universe cannot have been eternal, since that would imply infinitely low entropy at t=-infinity.

[@KingCrocoduck]

+thenorup entropy doesn't always have to increase, it just needs to never decrease. You can have a system where entropy is constant- just don't change the system. That's essentially what an infinitely dilated pocket of space-time would be anyway- a static, unchanging reservoir containing unfathomable amounts of energy. As long as the system doesn't change, entropy is constant. When the system does change- say, its volume expands, like it did during the Big Bang- now entropy will increase as the system tries to reorganize itself in a new state of thermal equilibrium.

[@Itsatz0]

+thenorup You don't understand the 2nd law of td.

[@thenorup]

King Crocoduck I appreciate you answering. I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. How can the universe be at the same entropy for an infinite amount of time and then suddenly start to increase in entropy? Invoking the big bang seems to contradict an ageless universe, unless we are talking about bouncing. But in the way Tom meant this, was that the universe is eternal and unchanging, which is obviously false. You would have to have stars burning forever, which clearly can't be the case. Have I completely misunderstood what you were saying? isatz: I passed the course on thermodynamics, so at least I understand it to my university's satisfaction.

[@blanktester]

+thenorup I think when KC said "Big Bang" in this context, he was talking about the expansion of space. I think he's basically describing a system where space doesn't expand and energy and entropy, and then at some point space begins expanding (for some unknown, hypothetical reason), which changes the organization of energy, i.e. entropy. Not sure if I just made this clearer or less clear. Or if my understanding of what he said is even what he meant. :P

[@stevenjones3389]

If 0 is the prestate universe and 1 is 100 billionth of a picosecond, the Density of spacetime at that point is infinite thus time is infinite because time is relative to mass. We cannot perceive what is past 0 because we live within the realm of everything above 0. If you want to see below zero you'd have to move out of the universe, into a place of unknowable dimensions and properties. Time itself is everything above 0 the universe has always existed because without the universe there isn't even time as we understand it to Measure its pre 0 state. So quite literally the universe has always been there.

[@aaronvenia6193]

The closest we could get to nothing is an area of space, in the shadow of a planet or moon, with no cosmic rays or particles. Except there would still be gravity warping the spacetime in that area.

[@andrewpeno8259]

best chain of guesswork I have heard for a while, almost sounds like you were there

[@musicbruv]

21 Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. 22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him. 23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth...... Its a Crocodile hiding under lotuses and the river Jordon does have Crocodiles.

[@Superflow66]

If something can’t come out of nothing then what did god come from ?

[@RazorM97]

I don't think a space can be empirically proven or tested, it varies, we won't even get the whole empty space

[@kenotube3160]

Very nice video; well done. But it'll never sway those Christians who say things like, "Just look at the trees and the clouds and the mountains and the beauty of nature" as their "proof" for God's existence. They will always believe what they want to believe.

[@andrewoliver8930]

And viruses, slugs, parasites, wasps, bacteria that kill, Chlamydia etc.

[@michaelalmodovar4332]

Don’t creationists also say something was made from nothing?

[@feydrautha012]

I'd recommend adding a picture of William Lane Craig during the closing section.

[@CricketStyleJ]

Craig doesn't dispute science and isn't a creationist, though. While there may be a similar kind of arrogance at work in his style of apologetics, it isn't really what this video was about. For all the objections I may have to Craig (and there are many) he does at least restrict himself to fields where his style of argumentation is applicable.

[@feydrautha012]

CricketStyleJ In one sense, I agree with you-Craig is much slicker than creationists like the Hovinds and avoids the easy-to-disprove claims of a lot of the young earth creationists. I have seen him, however, jump into the "evolution by chance is this unlikely to happen: 'giant number pulled out ass'" argument before (he then states that because it's so unlikely, God must have made it happen). In this case, I'm specifically referring to Craig making proclamations on the nature of the universe before 1 Plank time that quantum cosmologists will only speculate on. He doesn't understand the science or the math, and cherry picks the arguments from those who do to fit a particular creatio ex nihilo argument. That's why I think it's appropriate for him, more than a lot of the other creationists, to be pictured at 8:34 in the video. Deepak Chopra has done a lot to exploit quantum physics to sell his mysticism, so maybe he's a good candidate too, but I can't think of another person who has cherry picked and quote-mined quantum cosmologists more than Craig. To me, Craig is a lot more dangerous than someone like say Ravi Zacharias, because he makes his arguments sound legitimate by throwing in some facts (e.g. the solid evidence for the expansion of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago), then quotes a bunch of scientists, and pretends to know something for which he has no evidence.

[@CricketStyleJ]

William Walters On further consideration, I agree that you are at least partly right. While Craig doesn't dispute the facts uncovered by science, he does use them to jump to conclusions that the scientists themselves would rarely endorse. In particular, he does use the "giant number ---> tiny probability" argument with regard to cosmology. As you say, his assertions aren't necessarily false, but they are more speculative than he'd have us believe. So yes, I think he does some irresponsible data mining and in a sense that does disrespect the work of scientists.

[@GodsNewLaw]

In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained: Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable?

[@brpierce]

This is the major, major, MAJOR difference between Young Earth Creationism and mainstream science like deep time geology or evolution: mainstream science works. It gets results. There's a reason oil companies hire "secular, old-earth geologists" and not Creationists--because those "old earth assumptions" WORK when it comes to finding oil, whereas Creationists shrug and say "We don't know how the Flood laid down oil, so how can we predict where it would be?"

[@musicbruv]

Question 2, you are asking me to prove a negative. Question 1 Lotuses live In very shallow water. what ever this animal is it can hide under Lotuses and amongst reeds so it is not very tall and Crocs do this if the Jordon river surges against its mouth then he must be in the river, Crocs have very big and powerful tails, Crocs today live in the Jordon river, you work it out.

[@kevinfletcher1999]

In the beginning (hah!) he used a double negative, “nothing can not explode”. Can’t believe you missed that.

[@mikeyvester]

If god created us in his image, why are we visible?

[@franklouuu]

I say things as dogmatically as you do, since we both aren't scientists. But according to people that actually study the subject, "To transform spinules into setae, it’s a simple matter of lengthening them and flaring their tips out into split ends." There are geckos in Namibia with specialised muscles and tendons, setae (of shorter length) but without the capability to climb.

[@amoralis123]

There was no Big Bang. It is a misnomer. The logic of it is that observable Universe is Expanding, therefore, it must have been, sometime in the past, a smaller, extrapolating from this there must have been a time when it was even smaller reaching a conclusion that at one time in the past the Universe was infinitely small. That is all.

[@k1productions87]

I look at Creationists need for a supreme being as the same as one's need for a parental figure. They cannot grasp how to take care of themselves in the real world, so they put this authority figure over them to take responsibility away from their own actions. If they fail "its part of his plan", if they succeed "its because of the Lord's guidance".... even people who dare to utter the words "god told me to".

[@zemorph42]

Very well put, and largely accurate.

[@johanncontra-thunder4195]

The reason animals are generally in the order of the Fossil Record, according to our model, is because they were buried that way during the rising of the flood-waters. The least motive, closest to the shore, and most water-dependent animals were all buried first.

[@brpierce]

"I believe that Faith is better and more reliable than mere human reason. But that does not mean reason and Faith ever contradict each other." Then your faith is not subject to being tested by reason. How, then, will you ever know if something you hold as an article of faith--be it a literal 6-day creation or a young Earth or anything else--is wrong?

[@stevenos100]

"The Arrogance ..." is what I have to deal with every waking moment of a precess of time which is simply energy = I Am

[@qhsperson]

Years ago on This American Life, there was a middle-aged man who thought he'd found a world-shaking error in basic physics, something that would make him famous and change science as it was known. Problem was, he misunderstood one of the basic definitions, the sort of thing that's explained in high school physics, and since he had no background in physics at all, he just didn't get it. The sad part was that he'd quit his job, putting his and his wife's future in jeopardy since he was also spending their money on trying to prove that he was correct and that every other physicist in recorded time, including Einstein, was wrong. The show brought in a physics professor from a significant university to try to explain to this man why he was wrong, but it did no good--the man was so convinced that he was right, nothing and no one would change his mind. I've often wondered what happened to the man and his wife, if he bankrupted them, lost their house, etc., just because his ignorance over-rode his reason. It was really quite a sad story.

[@TuAbuelaCatolica]

qhsperson, I'll look it up. That story sounds interesting.

[@TheBestMCScavenger]

When Tom says "Can something create itself, no, Can nothing create something, No, The law of cause and effect states for every effect there has to be an equal or greater cause and nothing could not be greater than something..." Why do Christians always say that but when I ask them, "Well my reason is total wrong, tell me this, if something can't create itself then what created god?"

[@TheBestMCScavenger]

And they can't answer that

[@phil3954]

That the creationists reject directly out of hand rational thought and scientifically proven ideas so clearly presented (as in this video) is further testament to their unwillingness to learn and their arrogance.

[@w-james9277]

If there is no god then why should I believe in him?

[@triplejudy]

Througout my life I've dealt with many creationists and my basic conclusion is one of ignorance and laziness.. It's much easier to simply quote passages from a book of delusionsal myths as opposed to volumes of evidence we call Mathematics, Phyiscs, Chemistry, Biology and oh yes, Genetics. Bottom line; it's simply too hard for them to understand; so let's go with the tried a true 2,000 year old method of faith and god. It's so sad !

[@fredericchopin165]

Sometimes, I actually wish I were able to believe in what Creationists spewed...It's certainly a lot easier than understanding and applying evolutionary biology, physics and chemistry. But then, the sciences are what broaden our understanding of the world and, in the end, striving to learn those topics is worth the effort whereas believing "God did it" leads nowhere because it's totally and utterly unquantifiable. If anything, it diminishes the wonder and complexity of the world by placing everything into the hands of some omnipotent deity who made things the way they are just because.

[@1900stratoliner]

Frédéric Chopin Throughout my life I've dealt with many atheist and my basic conclusion is one of ignorance and laziness. It's much easier to simply quote passages from books of delusional myths as opposed to recorded history. Bottom line; it's simply too hard for them to understand; so let's go with the tried a true 2,000 year old method of faith and God.