Wait, your mother didn't immediately die as your head came out of her womb? Preposterous!

His mind will be blown when he finds out that Lauren Boebert is real!

What about em?

@@antoniopratt1893 Grandparents can exist at the same time as parents just like how homo erectus can exist at the same time as homo sapiens. The point is this creationist has no idea what he's talking about but he's talking about it anyway which makes him a dishonest fraud. Why would the the same God that allegedly inspired the Ninth Commandment need so many lying frauds to defend his word??

@@littlered7820 My guy, the Bible was written by primitive, bronze age ignoramuses who thought daytime was at least four days older than the sun and who also were too stupid to figure out the moon wasn't a light source even though you can clearly see shadows on it. Also, YHWH was a stolen Canaanite God and there's no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus beyond posthumous hearsay and probable forgeries... buddy.

Surprised he didn't mention that he married his first cousin

I was so dumbfounded by his ignorance that I totally missed it! Good catch!

They're doing the Almighty dirty. He would be ashamed of His students.

Darwin died 141 years ego. I wouldn't be surprised if Darwin had some racist tendencies, but he was quite progressive himself. Btw, in his book if Darwin speaks of "races" he meant species.

He constantly tries to have it both ways. Like when he says free will exists because your decisions can't be the pure result of natural processes. Immediately followed by saying nothing can be truly random, you just lack all the minute detail to determine the result of rolling a dice.

Loll

What's the difference between baking a potato in the oven and roasting a potato in the oven?

@@jimjambananaslam3596 i dont know where potatoes came in, i was joking bc baking is kinda similar to baking as its a bunch of small changes happening over a period of time due to stimuli, that slowly changes it to something kinda different

@@jimjambananaslam3596temperature

@@jimjambananaslam3596 Roasting uses the same type of all-over, dry heat as baking, but at higher temperatures between 400 and 450° F.

Based mom

Your mom is intelligent leaps and bounds, even centuries beyond her years

Your mother seems like a sweet woman, I hope she's in your life for years to come

You're Mom is an angel. God bless her. Smart enough to know satans bs is wrong but in the same breathe humble enough to know she doesn't know what she going on, and still has faith... that's an angel as far as I'm concerned.

@@Kaziro_myoshi thank you for your opinion. If you have any facts to back that up, I'm all ears 👍

I would argue it’s like believing in millimeters and centimeters but not meters because those units of measurement were created as parts of an overall system. But I get your point. 😁

you are right there is basic and darwin evolution which are both diffrent

They like to use "micro" and "macro" evolution as a way to weasel out of that.

god did it boom roasted science believers!!! hah!

@@penguiin12 Got em

Bars

Why are humans special? There are 100's of species of e.g. weaver birds, should they be extinct and one 1 species remain? What a stupid remark from I'mNotLucid

If only they would realize that the way they're asking it amounts to "If you and your cousins both came from your ancestors, why are your cousins still around?"

@@0okamino "And why do your cousins look more like your grandparents than YOU! Gotcha, guess you are not related to your grandparents!" (lol, "macroevolution" is just lots of microevolutions until breading together is "significantly" difficult enough for us Humans to label them as separate species for our own purposes).

@@letsomethingshine thanks for explaining the jokes in brackets, you’re very cool and fun👍

Re-watch the video

@@yugimotobutjacked3231”yea bro ur so dumb go rewatch the entire 2 hour video because I think you misunderstood a single point”

I know what you mean.. however there are flaws in the evolution paradigm. There's not enough time in earth history for chemistry to become a self replicating cell & it's complex inner machinery. I wish he would be open minded to the supernatural which I have personally experienced.

@@gazmasonik2411 yes there is? You understand how long 5 billion years is?

@@gazmasonik2411do you know how long billions of years are?

Pony +999

And the fact that it was debunked at all proves science is not "gods word". These dumbfucks can't comprehend the length of getting a single paper published and peer-reviewed.

I remember a S J Gould essay on this. Hesperopithecus was reassessed, found to be a peccary tooth, and science moved on. That’s how science works. Guild’s piece was called something like “Essay on a pig roast”.

To add to your statement, Harold Cook, the discoverer of the tooth, along with the scientific community, derided the London Illustrated Times for publishing the poorly evidenced illustration. And less than five years later, when Cook discovered he made a mistake, he himself made a public retraction to the claim. This was not a hoax. It was a case of mistaken identity that a news organization, without the endorsement of the scientific community, blew out of proportion.

While he name checks Nebraska Man later in the video when he initially brings up extrapolating a hominin from a tooth, he seems to be talking about Lucy, never mind that the reason we know she's female is that they found her pelvis. Also, ever notice that when creeationists bring up Nebraska Man, they always call it a "pig's tooth." No matter how superficially similar they may be, peccaries aren't pigs. They seem to fill the same niche in the Americas that pigs fill in Africa and Eurasia, but they still aren't pigs.

Apparently scientific hoax means newspapers doing shit they always do.

Without religious scholars science didn’t exist

@@aokiji3347 *cough* Galileo being under house arrest for his whole life by the church *cough*

@@aokiji3347 Muslim scholars if anything

Hm most scholars were religous it's almost like most people back then were religous...

The dunning Kruger effect.

i noticed that 💀💀

What a surprise...

@xfreja @MrKrewie it's actually disgusting that he did that since he said some pretty disgusting things about how Darwin should've just gotten over his kid dying cause we're "meant to be tested"

​@@pangln what can you do, people like this have existed since the beginning of time, nobody worth their salt takes these people serious, im just watching this video to laugh at how hilarious stupid his takes are and after that ill just go about my day and forget that this dude ever existed

@@MrKrewiekeep taking your anti depressants

i saw someone who looked vaguely like a ferret once, i guess human hybrids are real

@@hiken6701 does your brain work?

@@hiken6701 ok cry top your wizzzard invisibile man

Their 'logic' is very simple. If it's impossible, only God could have done it. I always thought that was obvious. (It's also obviously false, of course.)

​@@DudeTheMighty The disconnect is that what they think of as impossible really isn't. They're making up a point so they can argue with themselves and award themselves the point. It just looks dumb from the outside, which it is because even within their own argument. They're saying magic isn't the answer ( which no one but them was saying anyway) and then providing magic as their answer.

aint called magic if god does it I guess? that gets a new name called miracles where anything is permissable

Its because they either get brainwashed/don't care. People like Kent Hovind and how they argue in debates also don't help.

Thats the thing that always gets me with these kinds of people. Like you really think the countless amount of experts that put time into creating and studying these fields just miraculously missed something a person with literally no experience in the field found?

😆😂🤣😪😞😒😳🤬 oh look at that🐿

​@ravimukerji6609 I think that often that does happen which is why it's so important to have crossover between feilds but you do still need a basic understanding ...if you have a basic understanding of mathematics you can look at economics and see things which economists might miss. Or if you're a veterinarian you might look at something in human medicine and see something medics have missed. But if you're an astologist you cant look at astronomy and see something they missed. Or like often seems to happen you're a mythologist and you look at history and see things which aren't there. But you might be a radiologist or a geologist and see something historians missed. There is scope for people outside one feild to see something in another feild that isn't easily seen from within a paradigm but you have to at least be able to say the alphabet and just have some very basic understanding of the world as a basis to even attempt to get into any feild. And if you have those basics you can look into any feild you want to ..but without those basics you cant form fundamentals and without fundamentals you cant look at anything with any value. If your base is screwed or malformed everything you look at will become deformed. And unfortunately not everyone is able to develop basic learning because 15percent of us are subnormal intellectually ...and can't even be used as cannon fodder. And because kids are not taught well enough to think or solve problems.

I think it's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. "I don't understand how X works, therefore X doesn't work." Which completely ignores the possibility that the reason X doesn't make sense is entirely a *you* problem.

How many orthodox churches claim to have the Ark of the Covenant😂😂

And the fabricated Goliath skull💀

Technically incorrect, given that stuff like the relics with Pope John Paul II's blood could be considered religious artifacts. But artifacts with supernatural powers, or obviously outrageous claims like finding the Holy Grail etc. are probably what you meant anyway, I'm a huge pedant who has trouble not voicing it.

@@BirchMonkey857 not incorrect at all. Either technically or otherwise. If you want to be a pro internet pedant maybe you should spend some time learning what words mean.

Those shrunken heads bought in Victorian Times were supposed to be witch doctors heads and turned out to be teenage girls who could never be witch doctors. It is a scam for money. Like people trying to prove evolution by producing mermaid bodies with random bones hobbled together. If there seems money in it, people will make fakes. Like Nike knock off shoes. Because they were fabricated as knock offs to swindle buyers looking to acquire them, same as collectors of artifacts religious or otherwise, we can rest assured Nike shoes never existed either.

Understandable. I can't even watch Hovind because of how painful his work is, so I imagine a guy who repeats DI talking points is at least as painful to someone who's been working hard on discrediting people at the DI.

Imma be real... Watching smart people get disappointed while simultaneously destroying woke or otherwise ideologically driven babbling idiots is easily my TOP guilty pleasure right now.

Talking to Creationists is the opposite of fun.

​@@f.u.m.o.5669 I the past I always wanted to debate with a religious person because I thought it would be fun and interesting. Then I watched some public debates from America and learned that not all people have the constraints of logic and reason. Now I would be a bit scared to debate a believer (at least in the US).

@@xyleblack2545 dont be afraid of those piss ants

Yeah, as someone else said, the video editing and literally everything about the video points to it being targeted at zoomers. And personally, seeing how many believe disgusting stuff like Andrew Tate, it scares me since I bet they'd gobble this up too.

His world revolves around one book so… yeah

God made kinds That is their end all be all. Ask em to define kind and watch them flounder.

Yeah, that is completely idiotic. Like saying "you can't get a mile by adding up inches"

Basically working backwards from what has happened and then exclaiming as it was unlikely, it's impossible. If there's a one in a trillion chance life exists, and the same chance that life exists on a specific planet, then life on Earth is a 1 in 2,000,000,000,000 chance and virtually impossible; but there are trillions of planets in the universe and therefore trillions of chances for life to form, a constant dice roll. Earth is only convenient when assume Earth is the one, and not just a lucky planet that happened to contain life. Similarly, it's near impossible for a specific person to meet another specific person and then have children, but it's very common that people meet *someone* and have children. Assuming that Brad Pitt would meet Angelina Jolie is a losing bet, but assuming that they would separately meet someone is almost guaranteed. That they met each other is just random chance and only convenient or whatever else in hindsight.

I agree 100%. I think a lot about this issue of low hanging fruit ie tiny channels with people just incapable of learning basic science, like the dude Scimandan ripped on for trying to measure the temperature of the sun with a hand held infrared thermometer. Clearly no one is watching that dude and thinking huh he's got a point. This guy on the other hand has a massive audience and is a very skilled communicator for the demographic he's targeting. It sort of shocks me, he put so much time in reading the weird anti-science papers, learning some small bits of real (but complex) science, mischaracterize it, and then tries to use that as disproof and evidence for god. If he just read the high school biology text book, he'd know that what he is saying is insane. But he has three motives for not doing that. He feels smarter acting like he understands the basics, while memorizing small bits of complex niche science. Secondly doing it this way defends his faith - something I too don't really care about, but I feel the only rational belief would be in a god that triggered the big bang and nothing more. Thirdly he has a substantial audience. A million subs netting between $300 -$5,000 a month. this isn't even considering the weird merch he is selling, which I imagine is only a part of other money makers. If he suddenly realizes he's wrong, he loses it all. He just becomes a regular, reasonable person. Either his audience realize too, or they are mad that someone isn't reaffirming their beliefs, either way gone. This is absolutely a channel to land some science and logic punches into

Oh we also know he's milking the youtube cow with how pathetically he tip toes around talking about the holocaust because its probably an instant demonetization, I imagine chosen to avoid people making MONEY off talking about one of the most horrendous tragedies of the modern world. This guy is literally shouting "I am committing the sin of greed, and in the process disrespecting the countless victim of said tragedy." when he handles this the way he does. He isn't even trying to hide it. Its so fucking bizarre.

Agreed, it was also interesting that he mentioned that New Darwinism is "political" given current climate where many people believe that "politics" is encroaching on everything in their lives.

@Easy Pete The "school is lying" angle here is particularly effective. Multiple times he tells his audience to use these arguments against teachers in the classroom, which is particularly bad because a LOT of teachers don't fully understand this material and aren't equipped to handle students spouting DI propaganda at them while they're trying to teach what's in a textbook.

What's good fam, his video was fire. (cynically gesticulates cringe affected urban hand gesture.)

i think it would be doable too since the DI nutcases just parrot the same bullshit repeatedly lol

Could be a really interesting idea!

I second that

May be a cool concept but that would just be like... some kind of test of his knowledge, while science in general is based on many people's research. So him going all naked into subjects he may or may not know very well wouldn't be very different from what the random flat-earthers do, except he has a lot more chance of being close to right lol And if he could search for answers "live" then it would... probably be really long I think

It's not a "test of knowledge" when so many of the original assertions are trivial to pare off as pointless or outright debunk when it's a tired argument. Put differently, the responses in the videos are not "Uhm, ackshually" so much as, "That's silly."

IamLucid is Muslim, but of course that's even worse, don't know where you were going with the Christian thing though.

Hes muslim you obsessed atheist

How is it ironic lol

@@yungdomino47182 Timothy has a misogynistic passage

and so many other books

Verily! What skullduggerous charlatanery! One was adroitly piffled at such outlandish stereotypery!

A broken clock is right twice a day

@@5374seth wait you're actually right

@@5374sethbutttttttttttt what about digital clocks

What a preposterous imbecile scallywag this iamLucid person is 🧐🧐🧐

One of my strengths in refuting statements like "it's so unlikely it could never happen" is.... what would the odds have been, one in a million, one in a billion... how many of those things could have been there? I guess about several million times more. So there was more than a million times chance that these kinds of mutations could have happened.

​ @erikblaas5826 Actually, it's more. It's not simple multiplication, it's the complement of the event that it NEVER happens. So, in fact, it's much more likely than simply multiplying. If there is a 1 in a million event, and it's rolled a million times, you can't reasonably say it will happen once, though ON AVERAGE it will. The real probability is (a million - 1)^million over (a million)^million, which is an insanely close number to 1.

@@erikblaas5826if it happened, the chance is at least 1.

@@sahildeshmukh8053 Well, that depends on how you look at it. If I had a dice with million sides, and it landed on the number "15," I couldn't then say that it was almost impossible for it to land on 15. In other words, you can't look at a result, then retroactively claim that the probability of it happening was low, when in reality, the probability is actually "1."

@@hashtagunderscore3173 That's precisely the problem. To complete the analog, the dice is being rolled millions of times across different people or different dice are. That almost guarantees that *something* will happen, even if that feels rare in the moment. So, my point still stands.

I believe they have a partial lower jaw now.

Hey I have the same computer head on m avatar!

Creationists were too busy making fun of the long-disproven "March of Progress" illustration.

And if we turn out to be cousins rather than the same branch line of the family tree, it still shows that variations and midpoint exist

Cuz he's a fucking moron. He's clinically retarded and been saying dumb shit for years.

"how can dogs come from wolves if there are still wolves"

@@OrdinaryEXP not even mentioning the biggest disproven thing being fought, darwinism. Whenever someone tries to disprove evolution its all darwin darwin darwin

very revealing

By our standards Darwin was a racist, but I have never seen any evidence he was a eugenicist.

@@stefanlaskowski6660 He tangentially inspired some American philosopher to create it. But he in no way was a eugenicist.

@@stefanlaskowski6660 typical liberal, believes evolution but shuts down when you draw the natural conclusions of evolution. Races are different. It comes down to genes.

⁠@@stefanlaskowski6660By all accounts, Darwin was pretty progressive on race for a man of his time and place. If he were to suddenly come back to life, he would probably seem ignorant, but not hateful.

Boomers are on KZfaq?

educational reaction content is good, "reaction" content where people just steal other people's work while adding nothing to it are bad

@@Killbayne An apt summary.

Ur feedback and opinion was also great.

​@@Killbayne I agree. Omg this goes back to copyrights. Acrually there was a seminar that discussed what copyrights are, by this mean it also discussed things that normally wouldnt think is subjected to the laws and acts of privacy or copyrights. An idea if stolen from its original without giving credit to the person is considered a breach of copyrights and that person can be subjected to a lot of "stuff." There was a case study about a student and his professor. The professor stole the students idea and basically the gist was he made a profit off of it, until that got exposed by the president or the dean of the institution and the professor suffered tremendously. He lost his job, licence, etc. to teach. So this was sad too because the instructor knew what he was doing and the student was a freshman. Really sad case

you should hate reaction videos not only when they add nothing, but also when they just steal videos for profit, like livestreamers, even if they add value to the origial video

Exactly

To be honest i love how this guy is a prime example on how science pulls the human race further no matter how much people dont want to accept it. Christians may be screaming and kicking and crying but today they are forced to admit evolution is a thing, the domain they can suff their god in gets progressively smaller. Give it 80 years (30 for Abiogenesis research to be mainstreamly communicated and accepted and 50 for 2 new generations of theists who deny it) and then they will have accepted Abiogenesis. Science drags theism with it like the delusional child trappend in fairy tales it is and at some time they will grow up. Look at germany. Even klarge parts of religious people dont believe in god or heaven or etc.

Ah sorry. I guess I'm not allowed to question things. What side is anyone on anymore?

There's a saying "Internet gave a loud voice to way too many idiots!!!"

​@@bungiecrimes7247 Then what you do is question experts in the field.

I thought it was the other way around

@@user-dc9oq2pr6v Lennon's son Julian inspired the song with a nursery school drawing that he called "Lucy - in the sky with diamonds".

It's just a fancy way of saying "why are there still apes", though I may be giving him too much credit to understand that.

@Asylumnus if only creationists were capable of critical thinking…

Wait till you hear how old their textbook is 😂 When debating some fundamentalists it’s important to understand certain thought processes. For example “my book is literal truth” explains why they point to those trees and say “see, they think bananas became monkeys and mice gave birth to elephants” they just don’t understand diagrammatic representations

Because they can't change the concepts in their book they think that everyone else can't change other concepts from other books

@@alocsx A lot of them seem to have a hard time with the idea that someone can be in the position of Darwin in term of science history, and not bee seen by the "followers" as a sort of evolution prophet.

@@steveford6022 Not that long, DNA and genetics are quite recent, you and me are likely not going to see all of that, but your grand-children or their own grand-children might.

So darwin didnt know about dna then,he was on the right track tho just not monkeys to human,,i dont think well find out the truth in our life time,like you say,but you never know,if god is real maybe we will find out b4 our kids a grand kids haha,i just cant imagine life begining from a molton rock that somehow gets a magnetic feild and ozone layer,gravity,all the things to suport life,defiently wen no other planet as far as we know, hasnt evolved like us,then for comlicated cells to form and all the things needed for life,amino acids,proteins ect,,i didnt do science but i have read books and watched many vidios,documentreis,on genetics and geogrphics and bioligy,ect,,,and know euff to question others,i do find it facinating.what do you think?

you can tell how skeptic he is of himself when he made that disclaimer, he knew damn well he's gonna get cooked in the comments 😭

How dumb were his parents, walking semi sentient mushrooms ?

@@gregc2467 Hey as a walking semi sentient mushroom, I would say that he is more of a walking semi sentient rock.

@@fledthehunter5293 As a walking semi sentient rock, I would say that he is more of a walking non-sentient piece of paper

But you don't inherit your parents jeans! You might inherit their house or wealth, but what am I going to do with all of their old clothes? .... OOOHHHHHH

​@@thegreenlord3401as a walking non-sentient piece of paper, I would say he's more of a walking oxygen molecule.

Yes, like saying what is not his speciality, rather than claiming to speak to everything, shows what scientific integrity is about. Rather than someone trying to claim knowledge in every possible area whilst showing a lack of understanding in pretty much everything

I am still stuck on the name. I really doubt that the guy is lucid.

Dave knows about alot of things but he doesnt know everything.

This is what gets me. People need to know how to say "I don't know" and just not in a dismissive way to get people to go away, in an earnest and humble way. Some people always feel the need to "create" an answer to a question or chime into a discussion that they have no business leading in. It's better to just think for a moment before speaking or commenting and then progress from there. Of course, this assumes one has developed the ability to know that they're out of their depth in the first place. The groundbreaking thing is, you can actually still give your surface-level thoughts (a lot of people still find value in seeing others engaged in healthy discussion), just disclose that you are not very familiar with a topic and speak with an air of humility and self-awareness.

@@Asterite100 and if your faith or other belief means that you must be right then having no answer is somehow a threat to that world view. Ironically what is thought to be the earliest written book that made it into Hebrew scripture and then the Bible is basically a discourse/poetic consideration of 'why do bad things happen to good people?'. In the end the man Job confronts God with the question and just gets told he has not right to know as a mere mortal, and so have to live with the 'don't knows' of life.

@I Hate Bud Light Beer "challenging" Spewing out unscientific nonsense is not challenging any consensus, buddy. Also, scientific racism was undoubtedly wrong and plenty of scientists back then thought the same. But even if they didn't, that doesn't mean it didn't make sense at the time. It was still science even if it turned out to be highly immoral and actually false. Ether was once science until it was debunked more than a century ago.

@I Hate Bud Light Beer screaming? Who is screaming? Do you know what screaming sounds like? And challenging the current scientific theories and facts is fine. But if your challenge is proven wrong you don't keep saying the same thing for 40 years. You find something new. And the challenge should be something with a peer reviewed paper. Just throwing something out that doesn't actually address what is being challenged isn't a legitimate challenge.

@@DaBurger1411 challenging science on basis of pseudoscience taught by your religion is not really a challenge to science

@@DaBurger1411 "only to immediately follow that by ridiculing people and screaming at them for challenging the scientific consensus as if we had contradicted the Pope himself or as if we had contradicted an immutable truth. "-- People who dont have evidence to back up their claims, or better yet, continue to say nonsense that has already been shown to be incorrect, DESERVE ridicule. "According to you, science is always adapting and changing to new information and yet we should accept whatever the latest mainstream theory is like a bunch of blind sheep because apparently now it's different"-- If you were educated or intelligent you would know that 'theory' in science doesnt mean "guess" but is the collection of the facts that most represent reality. Secondly, people accept it because there is EVIDENCE backing it up. Just because you are too ignorant to understand how science works and assume people just blindly follow authorities like you do, is not our problem. This isnt even about religion but about not being so stupid you can only function in an indoctrinated environment. What YOU should do is assume all your current sources of information are dubious and look into science from source outside your echo chamber. If you do happen to open your closed mind, you just might realize you have been talking out of your ass this whole time.

The same scientific method that calls you “anti science” or “dumb” for being skeptical or asking questions

haey Dave ,what's life ? i don't know and i don't care ! it is what it is and we know how it works...!

It's not even a quote where Darwin is agreeing with his side. It's also quote mining at it's finest. Dude even puts up enough of the quote for everyone to see that, but the full quote is as follows: "It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty." He later goes on to say that he's basically not convinced by any of the arguments people make for the existence of a personal God. It seems that he was, at worst, an agnostic atheist, who was open to a deistic god being a possibility.

Lucid can't even write proper script 💀

@@YenNguyen-mg5ty*a

When the cherries are ripe...really good cherries can enhance ANY argument from incredulity!

That's the moment when you confirm for a fact that your time has been wasted. Darwin is wrong until he says something (out of context) that supports my argument.

Magical unproofable evolution border cause god made it there to proof our belief fixes everything. I mean these people come up with maybe if Darwin was very very very bad than evolution stops like if kids cannot read the clock they are not going to age. If you think like that arguments against a fish wish to be a dog become totally reasonable.

If you can take one step at a time, eventually you'll walk 1,000 miles. That's why creationists' distinction between 'micro' & 'macro' evolution is dishonest, and doesn't actually exist.

It shows the power of science, once these people said God created everything, now they claim a god of the gaps.

He didn't even attempt to explain why the same process he agrees to couldn't lead to a new species over along period of time. At least Kent Hovind has "kinds" He probably doesn't even realize how big of a problem it is for him. If you asked him to identify the point which evolution stops happening he wouldn't know what you're asking.

@@angusyang5917 God has always been god of the gaps. There was a time when our gaps of knowledge were larger though. :) But they're almost at the point now where they're putting god into gaps that No-one can possibly know. Like "what happened before the universe" Like that makes any sense.

Especially if we know that the painting is going to have lateral symmetry.

i also don't think the lucy argument is valid. however if you just isolate it to "how can we make "reconstructions" based on just teeth or just a jawbone" is valid in another way. if we look at "reconstructions" of by example homo denisovan and gigantopithecus blacki this is a valid argument HOWEVER, this is not the fault of scientists but by science communication through news. most of these reconstructions have the notion "it could possibly have looked like this" and being aware of this changes everything. by example, gigantopithecus blacki's "reconstruction" is based on a hand full of facts: morphological evidence showing they relate to orang utangs, relative size to the jaw and some reference to morphological features that we see in species with a similar jaw. the reconstruction of this species shows a giant orang utang, sometimes posed upright (there is sadly not enough evidence to determine if it was bipedal or quadrapedal) with long red hair (i couldn't find a paper that concludes this by genetic or protein analisys of the remains. it is possible if you have an intact enough dna sample however with the age of these fossils i conclude that it is highly unlikely the evidence is there). this tells me "oh wow cool, i can get how it could look like this" instead of "wow this is how it looked". Complete difference

It's not. They are willfully remaining ignorant.

@@Kruppes_Mule Yeah because that's the only choice they have. If they don't remaing ignorant then they'd be exposed and they'd have to admit that they're wrong! 😱

@@huzzzer6083 I think the cat is out of the bag already, or box

Exactly. Details matter. All of the poor grammar. The misquoting. The conflation of different terms. Saying those extinction events were complete 100% extinction. The misinformation about Lucy. The ding dong Dave is debunking is taking his ignorant confusion and building on it thinking its on a strong foundation when it is built on nonsense. Pronouncing peking as "pecking" is just as embarrassing. Ugh. I can't stand charlatans like this guy. Pretending to be privy to insight that is somehow lost on people who have spent decades, lifetimes, generations studying something they only read about online.

Exactly, because it shows they don't actually understand what a theory is or how science works. Theories can never be 100% proven, all we can do is come to a consensus on which theory is most likely to be correct based on all the available evidence. Laymen generally confuse a theory with a hypothesis, which is a totally different thing. A theory is an evidence-based explanation for something we observe, a hypothesis is just an educated guess that is meant to guide further research.

yeah they do not need arguing. they need a lecture

Unless it’s matpat. Because then, it’s just a theory… a game/film/food/style theory!

Simply reply, the Bible is just a book. Same logic.

@@CGFillertext But hey, it’s just a theory… *A REALITY THEORY!*

Another misconception is that evolution is about survival. It isn't. It's about producing fertile offspring. Yet another misconception is that evolution is all about competition. It can be, but as often is about cooperation.

I learned this in my middle school science class. It's very surprising to me that some individuals still do not understand this

To give some leeway - in general language we do poetically/coloquially misuse 'strong/fit'. 'x team is stronger than x team' - that doesn't mean they're talking about strength, they are also referring to 'better at the game at hand'. They also use 'fit' in Britain as a slang. So in some sense, It does make them stronger ;) objective to their environment I guess. I understand your point and agree with it, just steel-manning the other side.

Yes, precisely so. This is seen in native African individuals with sickle cell. Sickle cell is, rather obviously, bad for the human body. It does a lot of really crappy things and makes our blood function horribly. It also protects against malaria; a disease that's more urgently dangerous. Sickle cell anemia isn't good for us, then, but is less bad than malaria and offers a greater chance of reproduction. Nature doesn't care at all about strong, weak, fit, or unfit. Having an adaptation that suits a creature to its environment also doesn't necessarily mean success. Many critters may have beneficial adaptations but aren't able to pass them along through sheer bad luck. Bad adaptations may get passed along in the same fashion via good luck. They may get weeded out later. Maybe they won't. Natural selection is a general rule, not some stone-clad law.

@@Malicious2013 It's one of the mechanisms for evolution, not the only mechanism. luck, isn't one of the mechanisms for evolution though, not one with any explanatory power unless it is explained what the aspects of this luck were - which would then be named a mechanism.

Also also him: "and also the guy who came up with the idea was also racist, sexist, ext ect"

@@Mr_Vosakisen I'm sure he's one of those people who'd try to justify priests being pedophiles or just claim they're not true Christians

Did you even watch the video?

@@Sp-do6wu what do you mean? Of course I did.

He didn't debunk anything lol

@@Sp-do6wu 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️. There’s really nothing to debunk.. it’s not like creationists even have a model..

You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.

Yeah, that's part of their strategy. Make it look good and well produced and people will believe you. Humans are literally made to be like that

It sounds like outsourced by the Discovery Institute to competent producer/channel. The editing and presentation are pretty good, so all they need is a competent science script writer with some expert consultation. We might think why it didn't happen? Perhaps this is exactly what they were supposed to publish.

his other videos are good, it's sad

@@jotarokujo320 yea he should stay in his lane of professionals then, don't make a biology based video and then start talking about random unrelated bs

For me it matters none. It doesn't disqualify his science, and we just have to concede to the fact that in those days, the vast majority of humans, no matter where u were from or your racial identity, were racist.

Darwin was racist (he did assume intellegence based on race). There are gradations of racism. Ignorant bigotry is just rude and patronising, which is still bad. Not the same as promoting slavery

@@hareecionelson5875 I wouldnt chalk that up to racism as much as poor malformed ideas of the science of human development. Scientifically, he had very little to go on as far as human development: by the consenting scientific commeunity, civilization was marked by industrial development and scientific pursuit/achievements. At that time, the vast majority of blacks were living quite "uncivilizied" exsitences (hence the ease of which the white man assumed them into the slave trade) in africa. The vast amount of villages didnt even have running wate, as it still is). Its easy to assume that kind of existance was very... savage and unintelligent, but that was not the case as now, modern science takes into account the adoption of new technologies and individual abilities to reason as part of what counts to assume intelliegence. Darwin was not racist in the sense of tryiong to assume superiority over other races, I believe it was more an issue of the scientific -pretext he used as his litmus test was inaccurate. That said, he still might have been racist. EVERYONE was racist in that time.

@@wwlittlejOfficial These things aren't mutually exclusive. As you mentioned, virtually everyone was racist back in the day. Darwin was a product of that time. He almost certainly had some racist beliefs. His racism was the product of scientific ignorance and "malformed ideas," but the source of someone's racism doesn't make it not racism. And as H. Nelson mentioned, there are gradations of racism - from unfortunate, ignorant, patriarchal bigotry to like virulent hatred and support of slavery. For the time, Darwin was a racially progressive guy. Also as has been mentioned - it matters 0%. Newton was apparently a huge *sshole, and we know Edison was, that doesn't make their scientific discoveries any less valid or anything. Darwin could have spent every day of his life after publishing Origin of Species publishing racist screeds and screaming bigoted things in his town square and it would zero difference to the accuracy and reality of evolution.

Either way, almost everyone was racist back then. Intentionally or not.

This dude's train of thought left the station w/o him.

hahahaha @@anthonyspears928

It would be far quicker and more rewarding to just name every logical fallacy used, then rate the need to continue watching the speaker based on how good their sophistry is.

I've seen so many of these creation debunking videos that I now view them as entertainment. I probably won't watch this all the way through. On my self-validating forays into creation-debunking KZfaq I seek fresh-faces. Same with climate change.

@@wedaringu667 That's been done, a lot. There is a limited amount of material to debunk.

Yep

Yes, I want that back from him.

he's a muslim so his probably proud of it :))

he really didn't have to spell it out

Nords? Sorry, bud, we don't live in Skyrim 😄 Sociologically speaking (as that is the only metric you can separate those groups of Homo Sapiens), Celts, Romans, Goths (and Visigoths and Ostrogoths), Vikings (and other Norsemen) and Normans don't exist anymore apart from LARPers. I understand what you're saying but that example is maybe not the killer simile you think it is! No offence intended. Thanks for the laugh.

@@avaggdu1 Goths still exist. You can see them on Thursday nights.

​@@avaggdu1to continue nitpicking Vikings isn't a culture or ethnic group but a caste of one ie the Norseman and whatnot

@@eliaskline5649 If you really want to nitpick, viking is something they did, not who they were - they went viking (i.e. raiding). Its meaning has changed throughout history and by the middle ages generally meant anyone from Scandinavia. You're picking the wrong nits.

@@avaggdu1 I like your nit pick, it is simultaneously true to mine it was both an action and the name of a group ie raiders

Your cousins too, and siblings. Because no common ancestry

@@thatfuzzypotato1877 aaah, yes, that too :D

And your aunts, uncle and cousins

⁠@@aokiji3347How so? Provide evidence other than „it’s dumb“.

@@aokiji3347So your whole argument on if Evolution is real can be boiled down to “nuh huh”

If you want him to respond to you, you need to write something stupid, otherwise he wont reply.

Nothing. It's all made up, meaning. You make life what you make it. Is simple but also intimidating, as it's entirely your responsibility to find and live whatever purpose you choose. I find personal relationships and human interaction at a genuine level to be what gives me purpose. Studying people, their behaviors, their opinions and why they have come to hold such beliefs. What drives a person to do what they do. That's what give me purpose, the human condition I guess

yea people dont give the law of large numbers the credence it deserves in many instances. in this instance especially.

Not to mention, there's always a winning ticket in a lottery game. So if enough people buy the tickets. There will be a winner. It's just highly unlikely to be one person in particular.

In an infinite universe it's gonna happen

Yeah, someone always wins the lottery. 😆 That's the whole point lol.

The statistical odds of a creature with my exact individual genetic makeup existing are next to nothing. But it would be stupid for me to assume that I do not exist. Xd

Dunning-Kruger in action (I know term is very overused, but it sure applies to him)

@@DocBree13 The icing on the cake being that Mr Lucid, on his website, describes himself as a “researcher”. In his case I think it means “I read something online, so now I’m an expert!”

the differences are "vest"

​@@DocBree13 Dunning-Kruger effect is not related to human psychology. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a pattern that arises from correlating a variable with itself.

​@digamma F Then why are the first 3 pages of Google results all about a psychological phenomenon? Are you being a pedantic asshole or do you have a point?

Actually that was his thumbnail 😂 I just added the other bits

And that is why misinformation can be harmful. It leads to a feedback loop which produces wilder stuff.

What are you talking about?

Truly.

@@moatef1886 iamLucid’s video he is talking about

I bet you had you boosters in the name of scenice

there is only evolution. Macro and micro were made up by creationists to cast doubt on evolution

🎯👌

Nah.. it's like saying "There's a tree, but there was no seed, so where did the tree come from?..." (It was designed and deposited to start tyhe ball rolling)

which came first the tree or the acorn? 😀

@@dbebermanit depends what do you define as a tree

Mr Beat is a professor Dave fan???!? did not expect this

@@lexxist that’s actually among the most expected things I can think of

Guess you haven't been watching Professor Dave for long because he hands out intellectual ass-kickings left and right.

mr breast give me money

he is reacting to a half hour video lmao

I cant understand why anyone would be convinced by a guy with a 'meet me at Mcdonalds hair cut who looks like he decided that his gaming channel wasn't getting enough attention so picked up a side hustle.

​@@haroldramislives Teenagers, they can be convinced by anyone.

I recently saw a video of these kids from the 50's or something talking in the classroom and everyone in the comments where so impressed with how 'intelligent' the kids were, they were just talking about regular stuff in a regular way, but with RP English accents. All it takes is a sophisticated sounding accent to convince most people that you're saying something profound. I feel like most people don't actually pay any attention to what's being said, they just side with whoever impresses them the most, be it a cool accent or fancy video skills.

And that one can learn to use tools without understanding what makes those tools work. You can teach a monkey to operate a quantum computer. You just can't teach it to be honest or sincere. And in a dishonest and insincere society doing the opposite is very much discouraged. In all societies it's highly discouraged to criticize dishonesty and insincerity and we're not even consistent in that; many smaller groups will insist on honesty and sincerity because it's required to function as social animals because of reliability and the dangers of stress and the ethics that might doesn't make right and the acknowledgement that instead of might, it's diversity that makes us strong.

​@@haroldramislives The irony of course being that "deciding to pick up an education channel side hustle to supplement their not very successful gaming channel" is literally what catapulted Perun into a genuinely respected public figure in online military discourse. I wonder what the difference between iamLucid and Perun is...

With that skill, he could won the world mental gymnastic championship 😄

guy went from “eugenics used survival of the fittest as justification” to “Darwin believed in god and atheists want to convert you”, then jumped to “I don’t like naturalism because no free will”, then somehow made the classic argument that “something cannot come from nothing”, and went back to abiogenesis to say “look at how complex life is, how can molecules just form this” It’s honestly quite impressive.

​​@@memeswithcringe1624 you forgot the most important segment: Where he plugged his income stream. "Buy my V-card and hear me babble about eugenics and how evil evolution, and by extension atheism, is." This is just some guy who is grifting dumb people.

Hi I am a Christian and I’d like to point something out in relation to the Bible, the actions and laws of those in the Old Testament are not considered a moral standard in most denominations, but rather they are descriptions of how things were not guidelines for today. For example avoiding certain foods and not touching blood used to be important to preventing disease, but now it’s less important as there are alternative methods to avoid disease. Another aspect is the horrible actions of people that are described in the Bible, these are not intended to be guidelines, and rather are used in Christian teaching as examples of humans capability of doing evil and that even people who have done evil can continue to do good

@@5ld734 ok I’ll give you the 10 commandments but what about the things in the bible that god explicitly says are ok. That if a Slave dies after 48 hours of his previous beating the owner must not be subject to punishment.

​@@5ld734pretending the genocides and pain didnt happen doesnt negate the pain it's caused, progressive religion irritates me to no end, its like youre trying to get me to wear a nazi uniform by saying "its fine now tho we took out the hating jewish people and the whole genocide thing so you should totally join us :)"

​​@5ld734 To say that the Bible does not contain immoral guidelines for morality is simply untrue. There are guidelines that permit slavery. There are guidelines that permit slave owners to beat their slaves. There are commandments to stone people to death for things like being raped. There are acts of cruelty that absolutely were intended to be instructions on how to behave according to moral standards. Have you read the bible in full? I don't say that facetiously or to be snarky. "The Bible only describes heinous acts" is a perspective that, sensibly, can only arise from not having read the instances where heinous acts are, in fact, explicitly _prescribed_ as commands. If you haven't read the bible in totality, I suggest that you do in order to make better-informed assertions about what it says. Perhaps you can better defend its shortcomings if you acknowledge them in the first place.

@@werm3169 iirc the bible also says if a slave tries to overturn/disobey his master he can go to hell for that, so like yeah the bible mostly sucks with a small handful of decent teachings lmao

It certainly wasn't science-deniers who found out the Piltdown skull was a hoax, lmao. It certainly isn't science deniers who write children's science books that invariably mention it as a well-known hoax and explain how exactly it was fake. But he thinks bringing it up is some kind of shocking revelation that scientists don't want you to know about, lmao

This is why im uncomfortable with most scientists being religious people Someone needs to keep them in check because i certainly dont trust them to not paint the picture and screw data on the basis of their biasies

I have ecology and envisci content coming up so I'll sneak a little of that in there.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains lfgggg!!!!

Honestly, there's not much to debunk. They're all paid by oil companies which ironically, all produced scientific papers that exactly predicted anthropogenic climate change

Wow. The patience Prof shows on that video creator is unreal.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains I will say the only thing you are wrong about is saying the “woke”/ leftist are as crazy and dumb as conservatives, u pretty much implied that in an older video so, I will say you are wrong on that. Leftist and communist and of course anyone in the biology field or study it. Know much more than conservatives could ever know, and the woke aren’t wrong on transgender science I would say that’s an arrogant claim u made, and because you said that I’d say you don’t know anything about the science of trans people nor know more than anyone else in the scientific community. Also vaush and even hank from its ok to be smart are way smarter than you since they don’t make claims about an entire group of people without any evidence. Get wrecked boi.

Penguin wings as well, they are flightless birds but their wings are useful for swimming.

@@king-of-a-thingpenguin wings aren’t vestigial, actually! They are specialized for underwater swimming, which resulted in their flightlessness.

​@@lordfelidae4505did the ancestor of penguins have the ability to fly? That's actually curious idea.

No, because that doesn't exist. @@MrMichealHouse

​@@TheGreatProphecy Did Penguins just spawn in then? 😭

Pathos is the most effective of the rhetorical argument because emotions are easily manipulated.

Founding Fathers #cancelled

Every now and then I ponder how I would think if I'd been born on a southern plantation as the child of a wealthy human trafficker. I'd like to think I'd recognize it as evil, but I also acknowledge that if you're born into it and raised being told this is the natural order of things that you may accept it in the same way that people accept other religious claims and have to learn your way out of it.

@@BaronVonQuiply and in the future they’ll probably see abortion for what it is and wonder how we ever supported it. so who are we to judge.

Darwin gets canceled for racism and suddenly the right would love them.

@@ParanormalEncyclopedia I periodically encounter someone spreading the "Darwin was a racist and the idea that we're all related to each other and interconnected with all known life leads to racism. Not like my holy book that says there is a chosen group of special people and everyone else is trash" bit and I usually respond by talking about cabbages just as Darwin did 😃 They always have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about, and I expect that to not change i my lifetime Note that as medical advances extend human lifetimes and the speed of technology remains exponential, there is a hypothetical tipping point where regular mortality stops being a thing. I'm saying even in that scenario, when I'm 4 billion and 12 years old, they'll still be talking about Darwin as if the whole thing was one guy's wild idea and whatever humans have evolved to then will look back at Homo sapiens sapiens Charles Darwin and maintain that he was fully human, "just an ape", and also that despite him not having their additional 4 billion years of adaptation they will insist that 1850s humans and the sci-fi energy-beings are "the same kind" 😛

ya forrest’s content is pretty cool

Forrest is a national fkng treasure.

Hitler was indeed a "Darwinist" - someone that believes in the veracity of eugenics Contrary to what Dave says, someone that believes in the veracity of evolution is NOT a "Darwinist". Sometimes, I really wish Dave didn't confuse definitions, but he is human after all

One thing Dave neglects to point out: if we're discounting evolution because of Darwin's (quite typical for the mid 19th century) racist and sexist views...what views does IamLucid think the Church was espousing at the time? For example, proudly religious, protestant America *still had chattel slavery* at the time that Origin of Species was published.

​@@danielcrafter9349 no he very much was not. He flat out rejected evolution on creationist grounds and had books on evolution and Darwin burned. That is how he could be into eugenics, by _not_ being a "Darwinist"

Knowledge among bullshits

same can be said for democracy