Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
Speaker 1: version of my videos available to make listening to my
Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
Speaker 1: since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
Speaker 1: be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
Speaker 1: podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon Apppatreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to my channel, Vice Rhino here. Did
Speaker 2: you know that Christian apologists are a bunch of liars?
Speaker 2: I mean not all of them, of course, but man,
Speaker 2: it is a lot of them. And before you run
Speaker 2: down to the comment section to declare that all of
Speaker 2: them are in fact liars, I would just like to
Speaker 2: point out that I did a brief stint as an
Speaker 2: amateur Christian apologist myself, and I can tell you that
Speaker 2: I one hundred percent believed everything that was on my website. Sure,
Speaker 2: much of what was there was the result of me
Speaker 2: believing someone else's lie, so it was kind of a
Speaker 2: lie laundering. But had my life taken a slightly different trajectory,
Speaker 2: my YouTube channel would have ended up being the honest
Speaker 2: version of Matt Powell. Okay, maybe I wouldn't have been
Speaker 2: that bad. I would like to think that I'm not
Speaker 2: enough of an idiot for people to make montages of
Speaker 2: the stupid things that I've said.
Speaker 3: But in space, wouldn't it be a different scenario based
Speaker 3: on the fact that you know, the the space and
Speaker 3: the air in the space is much different than the
Speaker 3: air we have here. They believe that rocks evolved, that
Speaker 3: you had smaller rocks that somehow morphed into larger rocks
Speaker 3: that out of his mouth go burning lamps and sparks,
Speaker 3: the fire leap out. The dinosaurs they discovered have the
Speaker 3: dragons they discovered have chambers in the back of their
Speaker 3: heads where they can breathe fire. But that's just a
Speaker 3: couple of things. I mean, if it's about survival of
Speaker 3: the fittest, and we evolved from African Americans into other Americans,
Speaker 3: what about the African Americans that are still alive today. Well,
Speaker 3: I don't see anything wrong with quote Miny. I believe
Speaker 3: if we study history, you know the Confederates were able
Speaker 3: to shoot pterodactyls t recks, they had short, stubby arms,
Speaker 3: and apparently now the chickens able to do a handstand
Speaker 3: with those arms. Think about this, we have more in
Speaker 3: common genetically in certain areas with a gorilla than with
Speaker 3: an ape. Yet they say genetically we evolve from apes.
Speaker 3: We can tell based on genetics. Honestly, John, I don't
Speaker 3: know a ton of technical terms. I'm very simple when
Speaker 3: it comes to science. I just enjoy simple science.
Speaker 2: Though I have said my fair share of stupidship, so
Speaker 2: a montage could be made. Difference between me and Powell
Speaker 2: is that I would find it hilarious. My point is,
Speaker 2: I know that not all apologists are liars, because I
Speaker 2: used to be one and I wasn't. But I'm at
Speaker 2: a stage in my career where I'm not sure that
Speaker 2: I want to keep giving apologists the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 2: My policy used to be that I'd assume that they
Speaker 2: were being honest but were just mistaken unless there was
Speaker 2: evidence that they were actually lying. But I have seen
Speaker 2: that play out so many times now that I am
Speaker 2: seriously reconsidering that policy. Anyway, I thought it would be
Speaker 2: interesting to examine some times when I've caught apologists in
Speaker 2: some rather blatant lies. So let's go. Where should we begin?
Speaker 2: How about Calvin of Answers in Genesis Canada. Their two
Speaker 2: most recent videos as of this writing, have been entirely
Speaker 2: culture war nonsense. You know, the tired old trope about
Speaker 2: how belief and evolution leads to everything that they think
Speaker 2: is currently wrong with society, nothing worth responding to on
Speaker 2: its own. But just get a load of this clip.
Speaker 4: Here and simultaneously watching most of our country's leaders act
Speaker 4: the complete fool and seeming to hyper focus on issues
Speaker 4: that don't help our current social or economic situations whatsoever.
Speaker 2: For those of you listening to the podcast version, while
Speaker 2: he was talking about current world leaders not helping our
Speaker 2: social or economic situations, he was showing b role of
Speaker 2: three people. Those people were Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden, and
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris. This video was released on June nineteenth. None
Speaker 2: of those people have the kind of political power he
Speaker 2: was talking about. You want to talk about a leader
Speaker 2: who doesn't seem interested in doing anything to help our
Speaker 2: economic situations. Do you know why gas prices are what
Speaker 2: they are right now? It definitely isn't because of any
Speaker 2: of the people that he is trying to link with
Speaker 2: our economic situation. Turns out, when you start a war
Speaker 2: with the country that has the ability to choke off
Speaker 2: the world's supply of oil that makes oil prices go up?
Speaker 2: Who could possibly have known, aside from you know, literally
Speaker 2: every economist and politician to come before Trump. But they
Speaker 2: are blaming a bunch of people who had nothing to
Speaker 2: do with the Iran war for consequences of the Iran
Speaker 2: War and then complaining that they aren't doing anything to
Speaker 2: fix it from their current position of nonpower. How the
Speaker 2: fuck is Biden supposed to lower gas prices right now?
Speaker 2: My dude, what do you expect a bunch of former
Speaker 2: politicians to do about the current political situation? And why
Speaker 2: is the main guy who is in charge of the
Speaker 2: most powerful nation in the world not being included here?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 2: I do actually know why they're not including Trump and
Speaker 2: their scare mongering montage. It's because they are ideologically tied
Speaker 2: to him, and their comfort with Trump exposes another lie.
Speaker 2: They don't care about adhering to their principles. They are
Speaker 2: quite willing to comp there as long as the person
Speaker 2: they support who violates their principles enables their political goals,
Speaker 2: things like outlying abortion, restricting rights for LGBTQ people, eroding
Speaker 2: public education, stuff like that.
Speaker 4: With cultural norms such as typical roles for males and females,
Speaker 4: marriage between one man and one woman as a permanent covenant,
Speaker 4: sanctity of life, rewards for good deeds, and punishment for crimes,
Speaker 4: et cetera, all which were originally based on scripture being
Speaker 4: turned on their heads.
Speaker 2: If they think that a politician can help them attain
Speaker 2: their goals, then it doesn't matter that he's been divorced
Speaker 2: multiple times and is cheated on every single one of
Speaker 2: his wives. It doesn't matter how prominent he is in
Speaker 2: the Epstein files. It doesn't matter that he is an
Speaker 2: adjudicated rapist. What does matter is that he has directly
Speaker 2: enabled the curtailing of rights for women and LGBTQ people.
Speaker 2: I'm old enough that I remember the Clinton impeachment. I
Speaker 2: was attending a fairly conservative Christian school at the time,
Speaker 2: and I remember several of the teachers making points about
Speaker 2: how we can't trust a politician who would be unfaithful
Speaker 2: in private, because his private indiscretions speak to a deeper
Speaker 2: moral problem that will taint his political work. But now
Speaker 2: that the guy in charge is friendly to Christian fundamentalists,
Speaker 2: suddenly his private behavior doesn't matter. We're all sinners, after all.
Speaker 2: We must forgive him Christianity is all about extending grace
Speaker 2: to people who need it, except LGBTQ people or women
Speaker 2: or children who would like to eat lunch at school,
Speaker 2: or anyone of a religion other than Christianity, or those
Speaker 2: of no religion. Okay, so I guess it's functionally only
Speaker 2: about extending grace to those who are in your in group. Also,
Speaker 2: remember how Answers and Genesis has that article about how
Speaker 2: they think lying is always wrong, to the point where
Speaker 2: they wouldn't even lie to a Nazi to save a Jew.
Speaker 2: I'm not bringing that up to point out their hypocrisy,
Speaker 2: not today at least, but let me read you an
Speaker 2: excerpt from that article. Quote. Suppose a Jew comes to
Speaker 2: your house in Nazi Germany and seeks refuge. Shortly thereafter,
Speaker 2: the SS knock on your door and demand that you
Speaker 2: turn over any Jew who is in your home. Will
Speaker 2: you lie to THEESS or tell the true This example
Speaker 2: is cleverly constructed to solicit the response that you will
Speaker 2: lie to protect the Jew in your home. Using the
Speaker 2: Jew in its argument is designed to elicit the maximum
Speaker 2: emotional response. The Nazis also hunted down sexual deviantce like
Speaker 2: homosexuals transvestites and lesbians, as well as the intellectually disabled
Speaker 2: or physically impaired in their eugenical quest for the master race.
Speaker 2: This paragraph says more about the values of the people
Speaker 2: at AIG than the author likely intended. What I get
Speaker 2: from this is that they would have a much easier
Speaker 2: time turning LGBTQ and disabled people over to the Nazis
Speaker 2: than they would to assist gendered, heterosexual Jewish person It
Speaker 2: also shows what I have now come to understand to
Speaker 2: be a sloppiness that is pervasive throughout answers in genesis
Speaker 2: first and least important, but my pedantry won't let us slide.
Speaker 2: They use the adjective illicit, which is used to describe
Speaker 2: something which isn't allowed, when they meant to use illicit,
Speaker 2: a verb that means to draw out or bring forth.
Speaker 2: They are homophones, so when speaking, they sound the same,
Speaker 2: but their meanings are quite different. They also have homosexuals
Speaker 2: and lesbians as two separate categories, despite the fact that
Speaker 2: less is just a word that means homosexual woman, so
Speaker 2: that's rather redundant. Transvestite is also an outdated term, And
Speaker 2: speaking of outdated terms, you may have noticed that I
Speaker 2: didn't read the last sentence verbatim because I'm not comfortable
Speaker 2: with slurs. I'm sure their defense for most of this
Speaker 2: would be that they were using the terminology that the
Speaker 2: Nazis would have been using, But it seems to me
Speaker 2: that using Nazi terminology to describe Nazis persecuting people that
Speaker 2: you apparently also want to persecute isn't really great for optics.
Speaker 2: So this is an organization that is actively working towards
Speaker 2: a goal of persecuting marginalized groups, though they will at
Speaker 2: least claim to care about people's disabilities, and they are
Speaker 2: willing to lie in furtherance of that goal and support
Speaker 2: politicians who violate many of the values that they claim
Speaker 2: to hold. One final example of AIG lying before we
Speaker 2: move on, in the second part of their culture War video,
Speaker 2: Calvin said this about Canada's medical assistance and dying laws.
Speaker 4: And countries like my own Canada have instituted horrific procedures
Speaker 4: such as are Medically Assisted Dying MADE program, which is
Speaker 4: a euthanasia platform that's constantly being expanded to target more
Speaker 4: and more of our population, including the elderly and mentally
Speaker 4: challenged children, many who have no advocate and can't defend
Speaker 4: or speak out for themselves.
Speaker 2: Now, whether or not you agree with medical assistance in
Speaker 2: dying is completely irrelevant here. I am just pointing out
Speaker 2: Calvin's lies. The eligibility requirements for made are freely available
Speaker 2: to anyone who cares to do two seconds of searching.
Speaker 2: There are five criteria you must meet in order to
Speaker 2: be eligible, and you must meet all of them. First,
Speaker 2: you have to be eligible for our socialized healthcare. Second,
Speaker 2: you have to be at least eighteen and mentally competent,
Speaker 2: which they define as being capable of making health care
Speaker 2: decisions for yourself. Third, you have to have a grievous
Speaker 2: and irremediable medical condition. Fourth, you have to make a
Speaker 2: voluntary request for medical assistance and dying, which cannot be
Speaker 2: the result of outside pressure or influence. And fifth, you
Speaker 2: must give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying. Now,
Speaker 2: in these criteria, how in the world would that target
Speaker 2: mentally disabled children or people who can't defend or speak
Speaker 2: out for themselves. He said, it's continually expanding, but the
Speaker 2: only expansion of this law has been the expansion of
Speaker 2: safeguards to make sure it can't be abused. There is
Speaker 2: also a proposed expansion to include people solely suffering from
Speaker 2: a mental illness whose implementation keeps getting delayed. Again, regardless
Speaker 2: of your opinion on the law itself, Calvin is lying
Speaker 2: about it, all right. Who else do we have? Well,
Speaker 2: unobvious choice, since I've already brought him up, would be
Speaker 2: Matt Powell. So let's get him out of the way.
Speaker 2: Here he is at the end of a response video
Speaker 2: that he made to Lifestyle of vlogger Anna Campbell.
Speaker 3: Anna, you know, Lord bless you. I hope, I hope
Speaker 3: that this video finds you, and I hope that you
Speaker 3: see it and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and
Speaker 3: now shall be saved. You're not like a typical atheist
Speaker 3: that I typically deal with, and so I want to
Speaker 3: just let you know that, you know, Paul and I
Speaker 3: here on the show today, we wish the very best
Speaker 3: for you.
Speaker 2: So there you go. Anna isn't like the typical atheist
Speaker 2: he deals with. Where's the lie? Well, here's a brief
Speaker 2: clip from the end of Anna's video that Matt was
Speaker 2: responding to.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 6: Do I believe in God? Yes?
Speaker 4: Do I believe in a higher intelligent power that is
Speaker 4: not only with us, but is us and we are it?
Speaker 2: Yes, Now, would you say that that's the sort of
Speaker 2: thing that an atheist would be likely to say? Obviously
Speaker 2: and definitionally not. Matt took her nineteen minute and forty
Speaker 2: six second video and cut it down to seven minutes
Speaker 2: and thirty four seconds when he responded to it, as
Speaker 2: we can briefly see when he begins playing her video
Speaker 2: at the start of his, which is not an inherently
Speaker 2: bad thing to do. I once responded to a Mike
Speaker 2: Winger video that was nearly an hour and a half long,
Speaker 2: and before I scripted my response, I went through his
Speaker 2: video and cut out a bunch of irrelevant stuff. The
Speaker 2: cut that I did respond to ended up being thirty
Speaker 2: six minutes long. But the issue here is one of substance.
Speaker 2: What I was cutting out of Mike's video was him
Speaker 2: repeating himself and going off on unrelated tangents. What Matt
Speaker 2: was cutting out of Anna's video was anything that she
Speaker 2: said that made it too obvious that she isn't an aist.
Speaker 2: He used this video to say that the things that
Speaker 2: atheists believe are based in magic or fantasy, and played
Speaker 2: her explanation of why she believes in a deistic god
Speaker 2: with any references to the deistic god that she believes,
Speaker 2: and removed as supporting evidence of the magical thinking of atheists.
Speaker 2: He couldn't find an atheist that would say in a
Speaker 2: way that would be useful for him, so he lied
Speaker 2: about the beliefs of a deist and was creepy about it.
Speaker 3: Taboot, She seems like she might be mouldable, But I.
Speaker 2: Mean, Matt Powell's just some silly little guy. As far
Speaker 2: as I can tell, nobody really takes them seriously. But
Speaker 2: how about someone like Alan Parr. His YouTube channel has
Speaker 2: over a million subscribers and he regularly has guests like
Speaker 2: Frank Turrek, Elisa Childers, and Mike Winger, just to name
Speaker 2: a few. Here he is explaining that slavery in the
Speaker 2: ancient Hebrew world was primarily a voluntary welfare program of sorts.
Speaker 5: In the Hebrew culture, slavery was primarily volitional. So, in
Speaker 5: other words, if a person was too poor to provide
Speaker 5: for themselves, or if they were in debt, they would
Speaker 5: oftentimes hire themselves out to someone who is richer who
Speaker 5: could provide for them or pay off all of their debt.
Speaker 5: Others would choose to be slaves to ensure that all
Speaker 5: of their basic needs were met by their master. Either way,
Speaker 5: slavery in the Hebrew culture was valishnal.
Speaker 2: Notice the Bible verse he has displayed there. I'll go
Speaker 2: ahead and read it as he's showing it, Exodus twenty
Speaker 2: one five through six. But if the servant declares, I
Speaker 2: love my master and I do not want to go free,
Speaker 2: then he will be his servant for life. Okay, that
Speaker 2: doesn't sound so bad. A servant decides to remain a
Speaker 2: servant because of how much he loves his master. Right,
Speaker 2: But wait a second, why are there a bunch of
Speaker 2: ellipses in the verse. Let's go ahead and look it
Speaker 2: up for ourselves, shall we. Huh. Alan seems to have
Speaker 2: left out some of the words quote. But if the
Speaker 2: servant declares, I love my master and my wife and
Speaker 2: children and do not want to go free, then his
Speaker 2: master must take him before the judges. He shall take
Speaker 2: him to the door or the door post and pierce
Speaker 2: his ear with an awl. Then he will be his
Speaker 2: servant for life. Alan seems to have left out the
Speaker 2: part where the master physically disfigures the servant in order
Speaker 2: to make him a servant for life. And what was
Speaker 2: all that about a wife and kids? Where did they
Speaker 2: come from? Well, maybe we can find out by reading
Speaker 2: some context, starting at verse two quote, if you buy
Speaker 2: a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years,
Speaker 2: but in the seventh year he shall go free without
Speaker 2: paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go
Speaker 2: free alone. But if he has a wife when he comes,
Speaker 2: she is to go with him. If his master gives
Speaker 2: him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters,
Speaker 2: the woman and her children shall belong to her master,
Speaker 2: and only the man shall go free. But if the
Speaker 2: servant declares, I love my master and my wife and children,
Speaker 2: and do not want to go free, then the master
Speaker 2: m has taken before the judges. He shall take him
Speaker 2: to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear
Speaker 2: with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
Speaker 2: So if we actually read the full passage without chopping
Speaker 2: bits out of the middle, then we see that a
Speaker 2: Hebrew servant can be given a wife during his tenure,
Speaker 2: but when he goes free, his wife and any children
Speaker 2: that he had with her remain the property of the master.
Speaker 2: So if he actually wants to stay with his family,
Speaker 2: he has to give up his freedom for the rest
Speaker 2: of his life. But Alan presented this as the servant
Speaker 2: loving the master so much that he's just content to
Speaker 2: be a lifelong servant. And it's not like Alan was
Speaker 2: just unaware of this context. He chose not to show it,
Speaker 2: and he never addressed it in the video. He was
Speaker 2: lying to make the Bible look better.
Speaker 5: Than it is.
Speaker 2: But I mean, hey, this verse is just talking about servants, right,
Speaker 2: not slaves. Well, this part I can't prove definitively, but
Speaker 2: given his apparent comfort with lying about what the Bible
Speaker 2: actually says, I am convinced that he chose to use
Speaker 2: the NIV translation specifically to avoid the use of the
Speaker 2: word slave. Because the thing is, this passage is describing
Speaker 2: a situation where someone can be coerced into providing a
Speaker 2: lifetime of unpaid labor. The word for such a person
Speaker 2: is not servant, it is slave, and my preferred translation
Speaker 2: the ESV uses that word quote. But if the slave
Speaker 2: plainly says I love my master, my wife, and my children,
Speaker 2: I will not go out free, then his master or
Speaker 2: shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him
Speaker 2: to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall
Speaker 2: bore his ear through with an all, and he shall
Speaker 2: be his slave forever. But sure, Alan, this is a
Speaker 2: totally voluntary system intended to provide welfare for the poor.
Speaker 2: Give me a break. And I mentioned that Alan had
Speaker 2: Frank Turrek on Have I caught Turrek in a lie?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 2: But his are a bit more subtle than blatantly editing
Speaker 2: the text of the Bible to make it more palatable.
Speaker 2: The example that comes immediately to mind is his story
Speaker 2: about the time he got fired from Cisco and Bank
Speaker 2: of America for having written a book about why being
Speaker 2: gay is bad. Well, I'll let him say it. Wouldn't
Speaker 2: want to leave myself open to the accusation of lying
Speaker 2: about what someone was saying in my video about people lying, now,
Speaker 2: would I? So here's that clip.
Speaker 6: Back in twenty eleven, I was fired from two companies
Speaker 6: that I was doing corporate training for. I was fired
Speaker 6: from Cisco and Bank of America because I had written
Speaker 6: a book called correct not Politically Correct, How same sex
Speaker 6: marriage hurts everyone.
Speaker 2: Now, from that story, you'd think that he actually worked
Speaker 2: at those companies as an employee. But when you check
Speaker 2: out his LinkedIn page, in twenty eleven, he is listed
Speaker 2: as being the owner of the Austin Group, whose clients
Speaker 2: include Bank of America. So what it actually looks like
Speaker 2: is that he wasn't an employee of Cisco or Bank
Speaker 2: of America. He owned a company that they sometimes contracted
Speaker 2: with to put on leadership seminars, and they didn't renew
Speaker 2: the contract that year, possibly because of the complaint they
Speaker 2: received from the person that Turk refers to as the
Speaker 2: homosexual manager. Sorry, that's how he actually refers to the
Speaker 2: person in his article sex at Work in this podcast,
Speaker 2: it's just an anonymous someone. If he were fired and
Speaker 2: was explicitly told during the process that he was fired
Speaker 2: because of his religious beliefs, as all of the articles
Speaker 2: about the events say, and one hundred percent of which
Speaker 2: are told from Frank's perspective, then he could easily have
Speaker 2: sued them for wrongful termination, but it was far more
Speaker 2: valuable to Frank to be able to use this as
Speaker 2: a culture war moment. There are two possibilities that I
Speaker 2: see with this. Either he wasn't told that he was
Speaker 2: fired because of the book and a lawsuit would reveal
Speaker 2: that fact, or he was but being able to use
Speaker 2: the story as part of his culture warstick was more
Speaker 2: valuable to him than winning a lawsuit would be. And
Speaker 2: you can't really say that you've been canceled for your
Speaker 2: non woke opinions if you win that lawsuit, so best
Speaker 2: not to even sue in the first place. Or I
Speaker 2: suppose the third option, and most likely in my opinion,
Speaker 2: is actually that he wasn't an employee. He was an
Speaker 2: independent contractor and the companies decided not to contract with
Speaker 2: him again. And if that third option is the case,
Speaker 2: then I hope an analogy will suffice to explain why
Speaker 2: Frank isn't entirely honest about it. Imagine I was a
Speaker 2: speaker and I regularly gave talks to the staff of
Speaker 2: cross Examined dot org, and then they found out about
Speaker 2: my atheist YouTube channel and decided they didn't want me
Speaker 2: giving talks to their staff anymore, so they stopped hiring
Speaker 2: me for that. I'm sure Frank would argue that this
Speaker 2: is well within their rights. They don't have to hire
Speaker 2: contractors who have a fundamental conflict in values with them,
Speaker 2: and I might even be inclined to agree with that. Now,
Speaker 2: this lie is, at the end of the day, rather
Speaker 2: inconsequential on its own, but it does show that is
Speaker 2: willing to at least bend the truth to make it
Speaker 2: suit his narrative. But then there's a different kind of lie,
Speaker 2: the kind where if the person were just some random schmuck,
Speaker 2: they might simply be mistaken or uninformed about what they're saying.
Speaker 2: But they aren't just some random schmuck. They have advanced
Speaker 2: credentials in a relevant field. They couldn't have made it
Speaker 2: through the schooling necessary to receive those credentials without learning
Speaker 2: that the thing that they are saying is wrong. So
Speaker 2: they aren't just wrong, they are lying. For example, here
Speaker 2: is doctor Tim Clary, who has a PhD in geology,
Speaker 2: talking about the formation of shale.
Speaker 7: And so there is that process that's happening today that
Speaker 7: clays in that respects do slowly said a lot of
Speaker 7: stagnant water. So their argument is, if you have all
Speaker 7: this clay that became shale, you know, hundreds of feet
Speaker 7: of shale in one location or a thousands of feet
Speaker 7: of shale. Shale is the most common stateimentary I rock
Speaker 7: on Earth, and this is a lot of it. And
Speaker 7: so just to get layers that are five hundred maybe
Speaker 7: a thousand foot thick or more. They're arguing that would
Speaker 7: take millions of years for that to slowly set a
Speaker 7: lot of solution. It has to be a lot of
Speaker 7: stagnant water or near stagnant.
Speaker 2: Water, So clay particles settle out of stagnant or near
Speaker 2: stagnant water when forming shale, and that is one of
Speaker 2: the reasons we know the Earth is old. With how
Speaker 2: slowly shale forms, it would take millions to billions of
Speaker 2: years to make the amount of it that we see
Speaker 2: on the Earth. Except that's not entirely true. I mean,
Speaker 2: it is true that, given what we know of rock formation,
Speaker 2: the Earth has to be billions of years old in
Speaker 2: order to accumulate the rocks that have formed. But specific
Speaker 2: to the deposition of clay particles, it is a pretty
Speaker 2: basic fact of geology that there are several depositional environments
Speaker 2: that can deposit clay, many of which are not stagnant
Speaker 2: or near stagnant. Well, maybe he was generalizing, Except no,
Speaker 2: he wasn't. The whole point of that line of argumentation
Speaker 2: was to bring up an experiment where the researchers observe
Speaker 2: clay particles being deposited in water that was moving at
Speaker 2: one foot per second.
Speaker 7: You really see in the real world there has to
Speaker 7: be moving water, and they found it yet to be
Speaker 7: water moving at least a foot per second. Do you
Speaker 7: get these little laminations of these old thin layers.
Speaker 2: When I initially responded to this video, I was unable
Speaker 2: to find such an experiment. He didn't name the experiment
Speaker 2: or the researchers, so there's not really a lot to
Speaker 2: go on. Today I did find a paper that he
Speaker 2: might have been talking about, but it still doesn't really
Speaker 2: match what he said. They were looking at scenarios in
Speaker 2: which clay could be deposited on a riverbed, and while
Speaker 2: they didn't really talk about overall speed of the water,
Speaker 2: the sheer velocities they were looking at do have some
Speaker 2: that were around the one foot per second or zero
Speaker 2: point three meters per second to use civilized measurements. But
Speaker 2: it wasn't the kind of deposition that would result in shale.
Speaker 2: The clay particles only made up about one percent of
Speaker 2: the deposition by mass, and they were only deposited in
Speaker 2: localized protected zones. But all of that is rather beside
Speaker 2: the point. He has presented a scenario where the geologists
Speaker 2: are ignoring that clay can be deposited in water that
Speaker 2: is moving, and in spite of the evidence to the contrary,
Speaker 2: they won't update the textbooks.
Speaker 7: They'll see the textbooks. Even though this has been happening,
Speaker 7: like two thousand and seven, two thousand and eight, has
Speaker 7: been publications on this, people really aren't grabbing on to
Speaker 7: it because it does go against the Old Earth ideas that, wow,
Speaker 7: clay's really had a depositive moving water that seems to
Speaker 7: fit more with catastrophism, seems to fit more with a
Speaker 7: global flood, and so there's a lot of textbooks there
Speaker 7: just they're not even bringing that up.
Speaker 2: However, if we open the textbook A Practical Guide to
Speaker 2: Introductory Geology from twenty twenty, we find this handy dandy
Speaker 2: little table that shows the various seediment types that can
Speaker 2: be expected in various depositional environments, and several of the
Speaker 2: ones that include clay are environments that would definitely involve
Speaker 2: moving water, like river deltas and tidal flats. He is
Speaker 2: relying on the fact that most people don't know enough
Speaker 2: about geology to contest what he's saying, even though to
Speaker 2: have a PhD in geology he has to know that
Speaker 2: what he's saying is not true. That's what we call
Speaker 2: a liar. Now let's move on to someone who's a
Speaker 2: little bit more slippery, Mike Winger. Here he is doing
Speaker 2: one of his Ten Questions live streams where he answers
Speaker 2: questions from his audience, taking one about divine hiddenness.
Speaker 8: The hiddenness and silence of God is causing me doubts.
Speaker 8: Is there any advice or help you can offer, such
Speaker 8: as that God is silent now because revelation has been
Speaker 8: complete with the New Testament. Thanks.
Speaker 2: The main thing I'd like you to notice about that
Speaker 2: question is that the person was asking for themselves. Hey, Mike,
Speaker 2: I am struggling with this problem. Please help me. The
Speaker 2: first thing he does in his response is to reframe
Speaker 2: it from here's a problem that you, a believe in
Speaker 2: Christian are experiencing into The divine hiddenness argument is a
Speaker 2: philosophical argument that non believers use.
Speaker 8: The hiddenness of God is one of the It's simultaneously
Speaker 8: a philosophical argument against God's existence or at least against
Speaker 8: God's love, and on the other hand, it is also
Speaker 8: a very emotionally heavy and influential argument.
Speaker 2: He then goes on to treat this as though the
Speaker 2: divine hiddeness argument is being made by someone who is
Speaker 2: not a Christian.
Speaker 8: So if you had a sincere non believer, a non
Speaker 8: believer who was sincerely looking and searching for God but
Speaker 8: not finding God, that would perhaps prove that God doesn't
Speaker 8: really love them and want them saved.
Speaker 2: After that, he explicitly states that he's talking about God
Speaker 2: hiding from this hypothetical person.
Speaker 8: This is the divine hiddenist thing, So God's hiding from
Speaker 8: this person, this hypothetical person.
Speaker 2: Remember, the person who asked this question was not a
Speaker 2: hypothetical person. They were a Christian who was starting to
Speaker 2: have doubts because, despite the fact that they had been
Speaker 2: diligently seeking God, God seemed to be ignoring them. But
Speaker 2: it gets worse when addressing the actual divine Hiddennis argument.
Speaker 8: Mike says this, I've seen atheists who bring a divine
Speaker 8: hiddenist argument, and the way they do it, it's as
Speaker 8: though the argument was an afterthought to their atheism. And
Speaker 8: they say to me, how sincerely, I'm not saying every
Speaker 8: atheist is like this, I'm merely giving one example of
Speaker 8: one way this can play out. They say like, hey,
Speaker 8: I'm going to spend a little time, like really praying,
Speaker 8: really going to church, even really maybe singing worship songs
Speaker 8: as a way of later being able to say, hey,
Speaker 8: I thought the Lord Lord, I really tried, and that
Speaker 8: confirms my atheism one more time. Perhaps the agenda here
Speaker 8: was a way of proving themselves right about God all along.
Speaker 2: So here we have a slippery kind of lie. He
Speaker 2: didn't outright tell a falsehood, but he did completely reframe
Speaker 2: the question in order to avoid having to deal with
Speaker 2: the hard truth that there are Christians who sincerely seek
Speaker 2: God but don't find him. Such a thing is impossible
Speaker 2: for someone like Mike, so rather than actually answer their question,
Speaker 2: he pretended that they were actually talking about some hypothetical
Speaker 2: atheist friend of theirs. Somehow, he still manages to get worse.
Speaker 2: But I've already left a link to the video where
Speaker 2: I respond to that one in full, so I'm not
Speaker 2: going to rehash it here. Though he does explicitly say
Speaker 2: that the kind of person that the question is is
Speaker 2: a kind of person who does not exist. So on
Speaker 2: top of being dishonest, he also took someone who was
Speaker 2: coming to him for help in their time of need
Speaker 2: and then said that they are a kind of person
Speaker 2: who can't exist. So we've seen apologists unambiguously lie about
Speaker 2: facts easy to check, lie about the positions that are
Speaker 2: held by people they respond to, lie about the actual
Speaker 2: words of the Bible, lie about their backstory, lie about
Speaker 2: their field of expertise, and lie about what they themselves
Speaker 2: said mere seconds before they started lying. Why do I
Speaker 2: feel they need to make this video. Well, firstly, it's
Speaker 2: because I wasn't lying when I was an amateur apologist,
Speaker 2: but I was being lied to. I believe the professional
Speaker 2: apologist to my own detriment, and there are apologists who
Speaker 2: do sincerely believe what they are saying, but like me,
Speaker 2: they believe it because they were lied to by people
Speaker 2: that they trusted. And I won't always be able to
Speaker 2: tell the difference. So despite what I said in the intro,
Speaker 2: I will still be giving people the benefit of the doubt,
Speaker 2: even though I'm tired of it. But more than my
Speaker 2: annoyance at not being able to distinguish between the liars
Speaker 2: and the victims of the liars, and my butt heard
Speaker 2: in this about having believed liars myself. At one point,
Speaker 2: we are left with a rather important question here. If
Speaker 2: Christianity were actually true, would we expect the professional defenders
Speaker 2: of the faith to have to resort to lying in
Speaker 2: order to do their job. The fact that so many
Speaker 2: of them can't argue for Christianity honestly suggests to me
Speaker 2: that they don't actually believe it. Why they argue for
Speaker 2: a thing that they don't believe is up for debate.
Speaker 2: My money's on money for most of them, but I
Speaker 2: don't see how you can lie in defense of something
Speaker 2: while still believing in the thing that you had to
Speaker 2: lie to defend. In my view, the mere existence of
Speaker 2: apologetics is evidence against the Christian God's existence. But the
Speaker 2: fact that so many of them have to resort to
Speaker 2: dishonesty just makes it so much worse for them. And
Speaker 2: that's it for this one. Today's comment to the Day
Speaker 2: comes just from everyone who is complaining about the inconsistent
Speaker 2: volume in last week's video. I apologize for that. We've
Speaker 2: been switching away from Adobe products recently, and unfortunately, Adobe's
Speaker 2: audio tools were good enough that in most cases a
Speaker 2: single button press was all that was needed to fix
Speaker 2: up everything for YouTube. But what happened last week is
Speaker 2: that I got too focused on making sure my release
Speaker 2: schedule is consistent and I sacrifice quality for the sake
Speaker 2: of the schedule. My life has been crazy busy recently,
Speaker 2: and while I did notice the issue in that video,
Speaker 2: with plenty of time to either fix it myself or
Speaker 2: send it back to Piper to be fixed, I got
Speaker 2: busy with kid and family stuff. I didn't get around
Speaker 2: to it, and then I realized that if I didn't
Speaker 2: upload it when I did, I wouldn't have time to
Speaker 2: fix it before it was supposed to be published, and
Speaker 2: so I made the call to have it go up
Speaker 2: on time rather than correct the issue. Going forward, I
Speaker 2: will prioritize quality over the schedule so that we don't
Speaker 2: end up with those sorts of issues in the future.
Speaker 2: I'm also going to attach a pull to this video
Speaker 2: because I'm not actually sure what to do about last
Speaker 2: week's video. YouTube doesn't let me update it once it's up.
Speaker 2: In order to fix it, I'd have to publish a
Speaker 2: new video, which is the sort of thing that people
Speaker 2: find annoying. So should I republish it with the fixed
Speaker 2: audio or should I just leave it be at this point? Also,
Speaker 2: if you're listening on to the podcast, I haven't checked
Speaker 2: in a while, so I might be wrong on this one.
Speaker 2: But I'm pretty sure Spreaker, which is my podcast hosting service,
Speaker 2: allows me to change the audio out after the fact.
Speaker 2: So if you were annoyed by it on the podcast
Speaker 2: last week and you want to listen to it properly,
Speaker 2: it should be fixed by now, so you can just
Speaker 2: go like re download it and it should work, hopefully
Speaker 2: if they still have that feature. Anyway, back to the
Speaker 2: YouTube people, should I fix it or should I just
Speaker 2: leave it? Let me know by voting wherever YouTube puts
Speaker 2: the vote thing. I don't think I've ever actually seen
Speaker 2: those before, but I know it's the thing they can
Speaker 2: do now, so I'm gonna do it. Thanks for watching.
Speaker 2: I'll be back next Friday with more, but if you
Speaker 2: need to get your RHINEO fixed in before then, I
Speaker 2: livestroom with service every Wednesday eight thirty Easter around my
Speaker 2: other channel, The Watering Hole. Thanks to Piper for being
Speaker 2: my editor, and special thanks as always to my patrons
Speaker 2: Christian Battalado, Ross Sheldon and all the rest who are
Speaker 2: the lies that are told by the Apologist. That is
Speaker 2: my channel. If you'd like to prove me wrong by
Speaker 2: virtue of your existence, you can join us on Patreon
Speaker 2: for as little as a dollar per week over at
Speaker 2: Patreon dot com, slash Vice, Rhino, or by supporting the
Speaker 2: channel in one of the other methods of compound at
Speaker 2: linksoadviceround dot com, which is also where you'll find links
Speaker 2: to my other products. If for whatever reason you want
Speaker 2: to send me stuff, my peobox address is in the description.
Speaker 2: See you next time.
Speaker 5: No