R U trying to scare me? U succeeded

Glad you enjoyed and to be of help!

Thanks!

If you liked that you'll enjoy my deep-dive debunk video of some terrible papers.claiming dinosaurs were found on the moon!

" And if this is true, then why is any human behavior wrong? After all, we are just mutated pond scum so who cares? Nothing matters, right?" This is so unbelievably disjointed. "And if this is true?" There is no connection between the establishment of new structures and human sociology. For the topic of adoption of new structures, it's quite convoluted to describe anything happening over millions to dozens of millions of years as "spontaneous". Can creatures, over the gradual development of features, some likely spurred on by changes in behavior, change behaviors over thousands of millennia? Plausible. At times, we're discussing not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of generations of creatures, billions for the smallest and most fecund as for bacterium and the like. Yes, behaviors can change over timespans like that. As for the latter, yes, nothing matters. Your world didn't shatter with the crack of a garden hose across my grandmother's back, the sun doesn't waver from genocides. Cosmically, the wrongdoings and abuses of humanity on itself and other beings is entirely insignificant and has no long term consequences to the universe at large. As for an evolutionary perspective on why humans are attracted to social behavior and averse to antisocial behaviors that's very simply, that it's advantageous for social creatures to be such: we live in groups, so predisposition to social organization and discomfort with things disruptive to social cohesion is useful to the wellbeing of a group. "Why is any human behavior wrong" is a rather vacuous question: it's painfully surface level and succinctly really only has the answer "because humans are discomforted by it: we do not like it and it is disruptive, therefore, it is wrong." It's probably more meaningful to look at why humans, as a whole, more commonly, regardless of the legal system, religion, etc. that they live within, assign greater significance to things like rape, the taking of another human life, etc. than, they do, say, assign wrongness to the consumption of shellfish, and the reasons which we might violate those wrongs and rights of greater significance. The Aztecs cut out people's hearts en-masse to appease God; Europeans have a storied history of dismembering people viewed as traitors and threats to society. Genocides, across cultures, frequently feature mass wrongdoings to the oppressed and would-be extirpated population. These are very dire circumstances in which things generally disallowed in a society become less-wrong to commit under extreme circumstances for the wellbeing of society itself: the genocide of an outgroup is generally for the perceived danger of the outgroup being allowed to continue existing; it has been justifiable to quarter treasonists, conspirators, and criminals and spool up their innards from their body since they prove a very real threat to the stability of society; cutting out people's hearts is callous, but the alternative at the hands of fickle gods requiring devotion is damnation. But yet you'd be very hard pressed to find diverse human populations equally so dire a disposition about the consumption of non-ruminants and shellfish, despite it being considered wrong by some.

Furthermore, re.:"Thirdly, when using radiometrically determined ages for rock layers, you must take into account that there are three unprovable assumptions that must be true, but you have no way of knowing if they are. 1. There was only parent material at the start. 2. The decay rate has been constant. 3. There has been no contamination over the millions of years from outside sources" a) "There was only parent material at the start"; this is why radioactive dating is done through the careful study of things that were unlikely to have come together through means besides radioactive decay. The most clear example of this is with Potassium-Argon dating; it is viewed as a trustworthy method of dating rocks because it is extremely unlikely that argon, an inert gas, was part of the formation of the rocks. Therefore, the argon contained within rocks containing largely potassium is logically sourced from the potassium within the rock. b) "The decay rate has been constant". There is no reason to believe that chemical processes that behave consistently now did not behave consistently in the past. Yes, it is unprovable that the decay rate is inconsistent. That is why it's not oft considered: because it is of little merit for investigation (to the service of what hypothesis would radioactive decay be inconsistent?), and the decay rate being inconsistent is unprovable. We cannot go back 3 billion years and see if radioactive decay miraculously happened at a different rate, so nobody has put much attention to going back 3 billion years to see if radioactive decay miraculously happened at a different rate. c) "there has been no contamination over the millions of years from outside sources". This is likewise considered as per the validity of dating techniques. The durability from contamination is self evident in something going undisturbed long enough for the ground to turn from loose material to rock. That being said, there have been instances of radiactive dating methods falling out favor due to possibilities of contamination. Rubidium-strontium dating, for example, is less favored because of the tendency for those elements to follow fluids through rocks and escape during the formation of metamorphic rocks in comparison to other methodologies.

"First, no scientifically accurate creationist disagrees with minimal and limited changes to make new species." I have personally heard creationist 'luminaries' claim speciation has never been and never will be observed. I don't mean some youtube trolls but people who work for Creation Science Ministries. Do you not consider them 'real' creationists? No real Scotsman fallacy. "What we state is that animals and plants change within a range. There is not unlimited change" Argumentum ad ignorantiam - just because you place some arbitrary boundaries on what specifies as 'change' doesn't mean evolutionary biology does too. "Nothing wrong with scientists guessing, but please do not call a guess a fact" Etymological fallacy - scientists use terms like "seems to" or "appears to" for a specific reason. This being to leave the possibility of falsification and/or future refinement of given scientific theory. It's not limited to evolutionary biology and is a common language in all scientific fields except math. Just because you use it in laymen's term doesn't mean scientists do too. Regarding radiometric dating: " 1. There was only parent material at the start." That's the main point some radioactive elements were chosen for their usage in dating. There chemical nature of some specific elements preclude the existence of daughter elements in fresh samples. For example U/Pb dating is used because any existing lead ions are mobile and migrate out of the solution as long as the rock is molten. Once the rock solidifies you have minerals containing only uranium atoms, no lead is present. The radiometric clock starts ticking. Same with potassium-argon method. Argon is an inert gas and is not incorporated in the crystalline structure of minerals while they form. Ar only exists in minerals as a secondary daughter element from decay of K. Again, you have no real understanding of the topic you try to argue. Do you really think radioactive methods were created by people as illiterate as a typical creationist? They were developed by chemists and physicist who spent years researching the best combination of various elements, not taken ad hoc. "2. The decay rate has been constant" The decay rate in radiometric dating is based on number of radioactive atoms. For a given element, the decay or disintegration rate is proportional to the number of atoms and the activity measured in terms of atoms per unit time. The more radioactive atoms there are, the faster they decay. However, like a typical rate law equation, radioactive decay rate can be integrated to link the concentration of a reactant with time. As a result the half-life rate of a specific element is constant. It's not about the decay rate but the average half-life. "3. There has been no contamination over the millions of years from outside sources." Contamination exists, nobody is negating it. Actual contamination like 'reservoir effect' are well studied and taken into account while calibrating any given radiometric method. Yes, shocking, I know, calibration exists? Radiometric dating is a reliable method developed by hundreds of independent scientists over decades. If it was flawed like illiterate creationists claim, they would get a Nobel's Prize in physics for disproving it. "I would love to see paleontologists radiocarbon date the soft tissues they are now often finding in fossils." Soft tissues are 'often' found in fossils? That's news to me and I'm a paleontologist. I'm aware of a handful of examples of collagen and some other protein fragments found in dinosaur bones but the overwhelming majority of fossils doesn't contain any carbon. In cases where carbon is present dating has a limited range up to around 50 000 years. Anything older than that contains so little C14 you might as well slap a single date on it (50 000+). You know why? Because the resolution of our current detectors has a physical resolution and a detection limit. But hey, don't let me or physical laws stop you from attempting to date 150 000 000 year old bones with radiocarbon. I'm sure Ken Ham would be thrilled to get his hands on a dinosaur bone dated to 50 000 years. "Contradictory ages would be found most certainly." That's why multiple independent dating methods based on unrelated elements exist and work in tandem. Seldom is a rocks sample dated using only one method. And even when such is the case, different labs corroborate to prevent confirmation bias. "After all, we are just mutated pond scum so who cares? Nothing matters, right?" Typical religious dribble. It's like saying 'without god there is no point in living'. Nothing you said is original. All of your arguments are rehashed creationists propaganda which has little relevance to actual science. Most of these arguments are almost 100 years old and persist only because YEC refuses to acknowledge it was refuted YEARS AGO. But hey, never let facts and reason get it the way of your beliefs.

To cut to the chase, I am glad you accept that nothing matters. You expend a great deal of passion and time, which I do appreciate, for something that does not matter. As to what is considered wrong behavior, it could be due to the fact that God has written His sense of right and wrong on our hearts. This explanation is just as logical as the evolutionary one. That the Bible is supported by the science of archeology should lend credence to that it could be true. But then again, as you say, this doesn’t matter. I enjoyed the fact that you totally ignored the use of language of doubt words that occur in most evolutionary explanations. You also conveniently avoided the C-14 test of soft tissue inside dinosaur bones. Then there is the data of fruit fly studies which show that mutations can only do three things: vary what is there, like change eye color, warp what is there, like stubby wings, or remove what is there, like eyeless flies. Obviously the mutation rates are thousands of times faster than what nature can do, so millions of years of the same things will not create the novel structures and their associated behavior changes you claim to be true. But guess what? This doesn’t matter, does it. Finally, as the origins and development of life has no practical value to solving life’s pains and hard labor, then we ought to be applying our minds to more profitable enterprises.

@@usapatriot444 On the topic of existentialism and nihilism: " You expend a great deal of passion and time, which I do appreciate, for something that does not matter." I mean, yeah, why wouldn't I? As an overall matter, I enjoy living, no matter how relatively inconsequential my life is. Once this topic slips from my mind, you will effectively cease existing for me, in the same way that you have never existed for 99.9999% of all the other humans presently in and on this world. In a thousand years you and I will likely be forgotten entirely, or, at the greatest, will only have existed to the minority of humanity, to speak little of the countless trillions other life-forms that will never know or acknowledge your existence. We pass through our lives as a miniscule sliver of all existence, and that is just fine. There is no need for any greater meaning than satisfaction and fulfillment in our spheres than the, yes, indeed, overall meaningless enrichment of the scarce few we do encounter. "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away." "As to what is considered wrong behavior, it could be due to the fact that God has written His sense of right and wrong on our hearts. This explanation is just as logical as the evolutionary one." It is distinctly less logical to believe in magic than to believe things occur very slowly based on evidence. "I enjoyed the fact that you totally ignored the use of language of doubt words that occur in most evolutionary explanations. " Not speaking with absolute certainty about a hypothesis is not a manner of doubt, but an allowance for uncertainty in one's speculation since people are not, in fact, time travelers. It's a sign of honesty that someone is reasoning based on evidence to not declare oneself to be the arbiter of all-that-is-known when you can only piece some of what is known and information is gleaned only gradually. "You also conveniently avoided the C-14 test of soft tissue inside dinosaur bones. " This is not the blindspot that you think it is. Folks are well aware that one might find carbon within dinosaur bones. The reintroduction of carbon into very old things, which can happen through various processes, as with its rapid decay, is why C14 is only used to date things that are extremely recent and not extremely old for the same reason that the aforementioned Rubidum dating is only used favorably for very few scenarios and isn't commonly in favor in comparison to other methods. There is a reason, of the dozens of elements that may have unstable isotopes, that there are less than a couple handfuls of examples of radioactive decay that are used with any regularity to date things. It seems as though you are referring to studies where people have genetically manipulated the genome of flies in order to do things like reorder the sequence in which a fly's bodyplan appears, correct? At least, that I what I am gleaning from your comment, particulary concerning the disappearance of eyes. This genuinely has nothing to do with evolution as of current findings. True, it does not present an answer for the shift of body anatomy that we see through fossil records: this is not a shortcoming, though, because no one involved is truly of the impression that researching the introduction or removal of genes has identified the genesis of features. You are smashing a square peg into a round hole and then looking at me smugly when it didn't fit as though you have done something clever. "... we ought to be applying our minds to more profitable enterprises." I honestly didn't expect you to go for a hailing of "profitable" ventures. You do know one of the more consistent actions of Jesus speculated upon by the gospels is the ejection of merchants and currency exchangers that had congregated around and within the temple of Jerusalem to service pilgrims, right? Also, one of the first things that occurred during the Jewish-Roman war was the burning of debt records, for good measure about Jews doing profit-unfriendly actions. There is nothing wrong with doing something that isn't a "profitable enterprise" and is done to instead enrich curiosity and knowledge of our surroundings and origins. Not everything one does even needs to forward the solution of "life's pains and hard labor", or else what are you doing here? Hell, there is even a point to be made about "profitable enterprises" at times being extremely detrimental to the solution of "life's pains and hard labor" - it's why Jesus considered profitable enterprise to be the action of thieves when the profitable enterprise preyed upon pilgrims, and why the jews burned the debt records: "profitable enterprises" had become antagonistic to the pains and hard labor of many making an oftentimes ascetic pilgrimage and those who were struggling in terms of "life's pains and hard labor".

Because environments constantly change over time due to factors like climatic shifts, arrivals of new predator or prey species from elsewhere, changes in plant community, loss of a food source, and a whole lot more

Glad you liked it! More debunks are on the way :D This is actually my 6th pseudoscience debunk video, I have a playlist of them here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZpuHrLiB2L2pXWg.html