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 app,
Speaker 1: Patreon dot com slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Today's video is brought to you by surf Shark. Hello
Speaker 2: and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today, I'm
Speaker 2: looking at a video on Bible Talk TV called a rib,
Speaker 2: a Snake and a Flood literal Genesis Bible study by
Speaker 2: speaker Kim Wall. I became aware of him because my partner,
Speaker 2: while trying to find fun things for us to do,
Speaker 2: sent me a link to a weekend seminar being held
Speaker 2: at a church in Saint Catharines, a small city near me,
Speaker 2: called does the Evidence Support Genesis? Now? I did not
Speaker 2: go to the church. There's really nothing I could have
Speaker 2: done there that would be interesting that wouldn't also involve
Speaker 2: me looking like a massive douchebag. But me being me,
Speaker 2: I did look into it to see who was speaking,
Speaker 2: what else they've done so now here we are. Let's
Speaker 2: take a look, But first a word from our sponsor,
Speaker 2: surf Shark. Are you worried about privacy on the Internet
Speaker 2: in this day and age? If not, you probably should be,
Speaker 2: and one of the most important tools in the privacy
Speaker 2: toolbox is serf SHARKVPN. Serf SHARKVPN is a virtual private
Speaker 2: network which allows you to appear to be connected to
Speaker 2: the Internet from any location where serf shark has a server.
Speaker 2: By connecting through surf Shark, you can access streaming services
Speaker 2: from different geographic locations, which means that you may have
Speaker 2: access to additional libraries of movies and TV shows not
Speaker 2: available in your home area. But that's not all they do.
Speaker 2: With their clean Web two point zero features, you can
Speaker 2: automatically block ads, reject on wanted cookies without funneling through
Speaker 2: the pop up first get alerts when a website was
Speaker 2: a target of a data breach, and block malware. Search
Speaker 2: SHARKVPN adds an extra layer of encryption to your devices,
Speaker 2: keeping you secure on public networks. I always connect to
Speaker 2: public networks through surf Shark. Serf Shark VPN is easy
Speaker 2: to use and simple to install. They do not monitor,
Speaker 2: track or store your data and it works on phones, tablets,
Speaker 2: and laptops with no extra fees. Surf Shark offers a
Speaker 2: third day money back guarantee so you can try it
Speaker 2: out completely risk free. My viewers get special promo where
Speaker 2: you can get an extra four months out of to
Speaker 2: your subscription for free. Go to surf shark dot com
Speaker 2: slash rhino or use code Rhino at checkout to get
Speaker 2: four extra months of surf SHARKVPN. Again, that's surf shark
Speaker 2: dot com slash RhI and O for four extra months
Speaker 2: for free. This is a limited time offer, so sign
Speaker 2: up today and remember by signing up for surf SHARKVPN,
Speaker 2: you're helping to support my channel, so thank you. Well.
Speaker 3: Hello, my name is Kim Wall and I would like
Speaker 3: to welcome you to the first lesson in a series
Speaker 3: of literal Genesis. In this series, we'll take a look
Speaker 3: at some of the evolutionary thinking and how that relates
Speaker 3: or doesn't relate to scripture.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So the unfortunate thing for creationists is that does evolution
Speaker 2: happen and does God exist? Are two different questions that
Speaker 2: ultimately have nothing to do with each other. However, one
Speaker 2: of them does have a definitive answer evolution happens. So
Speaker 2: creationists who have tied their concept of God to answering
Speaker 2: the question does evolution happen? With a no end up
Speaker 2: in a position where they have to deny a ton
Speaker 2: of well established scientific fact in order to continue believing
Speaker 2: in their God.
Speaker 3: And something I want to reaffirm as we go throughout
Speaker 3: this entire series is going to hope this sticks, is
Speaker 3: that we hold firmly to scripture, we hold loosely to theories.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Here's the thing though. If the Bible actually were
Speaker 2: the infallible word of an omniscient God, then when it
Speaker 2: speaks to scientific truths, we would expect it to be
Speaker 2: correct about them. Thus, a study of science would wind
Speaker 2: up supporting the Bible, regardless of whether or not we
Speaker 2: start with the truth of the Bible as a presupposition.
Speaker 2: Now I get that he's using the word theories in
Speaker 2: order to promote the confusion between the scientific use of
Speaker 2: the word theory and the colloquial use, making it seem
Speaker 2: like evolution is just an as yet unproven hypothesis. But
Speaker 2: as most of you are probably already aware, in science,
Speaker 2: a theory is a whole body of knowledge about a
Speaker 2: broad subject. Yes, there are unproven hypotheses within a theory,
Speaker 2: but they're also well established facts, observations, measurements, experimental vers results,
Speaker 2: and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: Because the theories of us human beings, they're they're flawed,
Speaker 3: they change all the time.
Speaker 4: They're fluid, and.
Speaker 2: That is a good thing. The creationist tendency to shit
Speaker 2: on science because it changes is like if the protagonist
Speaker 2: in a rom coom after the miscommunication that drives the
Speaker 2: plot of Act three is cleared up, instead of going, oh,
Speaker 2: that makes so much more sense, they refuse to acknowledge
Speaker 2: that there even was a miscommunication to begin with, and
Speaker 2: end up staying mad at the love interest, never to
Speaker 2: reconcile because the information I had the first time was
Speaker 2: the correct information. You see, so.
Speaker 3: We want to be sure that we're not taking what
Speaker 3: should be something scriptural and trying to force it into
Speaker 3: a theory that doesn't work.
Speaker 4: You'll be unhappy with that, trust me.
Speaker 2: There are plenty of very highly religious scientists who seem
Speaker 2: to be quite happy with that, mostly by just recognizing
Speaker 2: that the Bible is not, and never has been, a
Speaker 2: science textbook. So the easiest thing for a Christian to
Speaker 2: do when they come across a contradiction between science and
Speaker 2: the Bible is to work under the assumption that God
Speaker 2: was trying to say something that is isn't actually relevant
Speaker 2: to science in that passage. Admittedly, this is made a
Speaker 2: bit difficult when you get to things like Jacob breeding
Speaker 2: sheep in front of peeled poplar branches in order to
Speaker 2: make their offspring have spots in Genesis thirty. But it
Speaker 2: can be done. Maybe for this one we assume that
Speaker 2: this was actually a ritual that God had put in
Speaker 2: place for Jacob, where if Jacob was good and obedient,
Speaker 2: God would bless him with the spotted sheep that he
Speaker 2: was allowed to keep for himself. Would it make sense
Speaker 2: for God to leave out that important detail, thus making
Speaker 2: the story look like an all known creator of everything
Speaker 2: doesn't understand the basics of genetics. Of course not, but
Speaker 2: at least then you don't have a book that is
Speaker 2: quite so explicitly wrong about what is today such a
Speaker 2: basic fact about biology that even creationists accepted.
Speaker 3: And really, when it comes down to it, my personal opinion,
Speaker 3: there's really only two world views. One is that you
Speaker 3: view everything through the lens of scripture.
Speaker 2: Technically, when you phrase something like that it is kind
Speaker 2: of correct everyone either does or does not view everything
Speaker 2: through the lens of scripture. But I could just as
Speaker 2: easily say that there are two world views. Everyone either
Speaker 2: does or does not view everything through the lens of
Speaker 2: gay unicorn Gary's holy proclamations. That is a true statement,
Speaker 2: But as it turns out, there's a lot of diversity
Speaker 2: in the binary, so much so that it leaves us
Speaker 2: wondering whether phrasing it in such binary terms is even helpful.
Speaker 3: If I'm a scientist, for example, and I'm a geologist
Speaker 3: and I'm investigating the rock layers, then I want to
Speaker 3: know does the Bible have anything to say about geology?
Speaker 4: Does it touch on the rock layers?
Speaker 3: And if it does, I really need to start my
Speaker 3: science there or I may get wrong conclusions. I'll come
Speaker 3: up with everything all backwards and it won't make much sense.
Speaker 2: And as it happens, the Bible is entirely one hundred
Speaker 2: percent silent on the rock layers. What is a scientist
Speaker 2: who views everything through a lens of scripture supposed to
Speaker 2: do when scripture is silent on a matter? Is it
Speaker 2: even possible to view everything through a lens of scripture?
Speaker 2: If scripture doesn't actually cover everything.
Speaker 3: Always want to start with that as a Christian. The
Speaker 3: other worldview is really just one that lacks God, looking
Speaker 3: at the world, interpreting the world, the events, people, places
Speaker 3: things without any scriptural context, or without God at all.
Speaker 4: So those are the two different types of worldviews.
Speaker 2: You know, I said he was technically correct, but I'm
Speaker 2: not sure how someone who believes in a non Christian
Speaker 2: God is supposed to fit into his binary with the
Speaker 2: way he phrased it. Hell, I'm not even sure how
Speaker 2: Christians who believe in the Christian God but don't view
Speaker 2: everything through scripture would fit in. I mean, I know
Speaker 2: how he probably thinks about it. You may call yourself
Speaker 2: a Christian, but if you don't view one hundred percent
Speaker 2: of everything in your life through the lens of scripture,
Speaker 2: then you're really living the life of a godless he
Speaker 2: Then problem is there are going to be plenty of
Speaker 2: Christians out there who believe themselves to be viewing everything
Speaker 2: through scripture just like he says, but who come to
Speaker 2: different conclusions than he does. As an outsider looking in,
Speaker 2: it appears very much as though Christians, even the ones
Speaker 2: who insist that they view everything through scripture, just decide
Speaker 2: that the Bible means whatever they want it to mean,
Speaker 2: irrespective of what it says or any particular passages, broader context,
Speaker 2: not to mention the historical context and linguistic nuance. It
Speaker 2: turns out you can make the Bible say pretty much
Speaker 2: anything you want it too, with a selective application of
Speaker 2: all of these things, so every Christian will be able
Speaker 2: to back up their beliefs with scripture. I'm going to
Speaker 2: go ahead and skip the rest of the section. It's
Speaker 2: mostly just him complaining about Christians who compromise by not
Speaker 2: being science deniers, and it's an internal fight. I don't
Speaker 2: have a horse in that race, so I'm skipping it.
Speaker 4: So let's start with the creation account.
Speaker 3: And what I picked for for this first discussion is
Speaker 3: four areas in early Genesis history that a lot of
Speaker 3: Christians have trouble with, and beginning right there with creation. So,
Speaker 3: as always, what we want to do is start with
Speaker 3: the Bible. Now, remember our worldview is based on scripture,
Speaker 3: so we start with scripture if scripture has something to
Speaker 3: say about it, and then we go and we do
Speaker 3: our investigations from there. And right off the bat, it's
Speaker 3: inescapable Genesis one to one. In the beginning, God created
Speaker 3: the heavens and the earth, So right up front, God
Speaker 3: takes credit for everything that we see, everything that's been created.
Speaker 2: Yep, the Bible sure does say that. Congratulations. The religious
Speaker 2: text for your religion says that your creator deity is
Speaker 2: the creator Deity. Much profundity.
Speaker 3: And if we look at this simple picture here, there's
Speaker 3: a couple things I want to point out. One is
Speaker 3: that it really is a straightforward reading. In Genesis, he
Speaker 3: talks about evening and morning at day one, evening morning
Speaker 3: at day two, and he tells us that on these
Speaker 3: days he did these things, and on these days he
Speaker 3: did other things. It's very very specific. It's very easy
Speaker 3: to understand.
Speaker 2: So remember earlier when I mentioned that thing called linguistic nuance,
Speaker 2: which has the tendency to make things less simple than
Speaker 2: just a plain reading. Earlier, when I congratulated him for
Speaker 2: concluding that the religious text for his religion says that
Speaker 2: his religion's creator deity is the creator Deity. I let
Speaker 2: him get away with stopping the quote at the end
Speaker 2: of verse one. In the beginning, God created the heavens
Speaker 2: on the earth. If we continue in verse two, it says,
Speaker 2: now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was over
Speaker 2: the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God
Speaker 2: was hovering over the waters. That makes it seem like
Speaker 2: there was nothing. Then God created the heavens in the earth.
Speaker 2: Then his spirit was hovering over the waters of the
Speaker 2: now formless and empty earth. But if I crack open
Speaker 2: my copy of the Anchor Bible, a scholarly translation where
Speaker 2: they go to great lengths explaining why they made the
Speaker 2: translational choices that they made, we read the first two
Speaker 2: verses as when God said about to create heaven and earth,
Speaker 2: the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over
Speaker 2: the season, only an awesome wind sweeping over the water.
Speaker 2: Verse two is not the second statement in a sequence
Speaker 2: of things that happened. It is a parenthetical that gives
Speaker 2: us more information about what was going on. In verse one,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to torture you by making you listen
Speaker 2: to me trying to pronounce ancient Hebrew. But in the
Speaker 2: notes for this verse they explain that the syntax of
Speaker 2: the Hebrew confirms that it is meant to be a
Speaker 2: parenthetical rather than the consecutive statement. Based on the opening
Speaker 2: words of the statement, Guys, we are two verses in
Speaker 2: to a chapter that he said was super straightforward and easy,
Speaker 2: and we've already got a linguistic quirk that could cause
Speaker 2: us to question whether the authors of Genesis believe creation
Speaker 2: to have been ex nilo or if they thought there
Speaker 2: was something there before God created his stuff, And that
Speaker 2: for some Christians has some pretty massive theological implications. So
Speaker 2: go ahead and tell me again that this is all
Speaker 2: quite simple and straightforward.
Speaker 3: Right off the bat, we have day one that there's
Speaker 3: the Earth. Well, the other explanation for how things got
Speaker 3: here doesn't have the Earth until billions of years later,
Speaker 3: after the Big Bank, so that doesn't fit. Look at
Speaker 3: day five, we've got birds and flying reptiles before day
Speaker 3: six where there would have been land dwelling dinosaurs. Well,
Speaker 3: the alternative theory is that dinosaurs evolved into birds, so
Speaker 3: you can't have birds before dinosaurs.
Speaker 2: It's usually me pointing out that the Bible got the
Speaker 2: order of creation wrong, so thanks, I guess worth reiterating
Speaker 2: at this point, though, we know that the universe existed
Speaker 2: for billions of years before the Earth. We know that
Speaker 2: non avian dinosaurs predated birds. We know that stars existed
Speaker 2: before the sun. They weren't just created after it on
Speaker 2: the same day. So if your book were actually correct,
Speaker 2: we wouldn't need to ignore all these things that we
Speaker 2: know just about as surely as it is possible to
Speaker 2: know anything about science in order to take your book seriously.
Speaker 2: But also if we're taking it as literally written, the
Speaker 2: moon is a light source that dominates the night. We
Speaker 2: know from just you know, looking at it, that the
Speaker 2: moon reflects sunlight rather than being a light source itself,
Speaker 2: And it's up in the sky for approximately equal amounts
Speaker 2: of time during the day and at night. So we're
Speaker 2: left with a few options here. Either we must not
Speaker 2: believe the things that we can see with our own
Speaker 2: lying eyes, or the author didn't mean for the story
Speaker 2: to be taken entirely literally at face value, or the
Speaker 2: author was wrong.
Speaker 3: There's way more here than I want to get into
Speaker 3: right now, but just know that when you begin to compromise,
Speaker 3: things just start getting ugly pretty quick.
Speaker 2: And there you have it. If you believe that the
Speaker 2: moon spends about equal times in the day sky as
Speaker 2: in the night sky, you are compromising them.
Speaker 4: Things are going to get ugly.
Speaker 3: So you have this idea that God spoke and it
Speaker 3: stood fast, God spoke and it happened. What's the alternative
Speaker 3: that nothing exploded and produced everything.
Speaker 2: Okay, we get to choose between a magician casting a
Speaker 2: spell and nothing exploding into everything. Neither of those sounds right.
Speaker 2: And the people who study cosmology seem to be under
Speaker 2: the impression that there was never nothing in the sense
Speaker 2: that he means when he says it to begin with.
Speaker 2: And I would argue that if there ever was nothing,
Speaker 2: then the universe isn't a problem. If there were truly
Speaker 2: nothing in the beginning, then that means that the laws
Speaker 2: of physics weren't there either, And the laws of physics
Speaker 2: are what would stop something from coming from nothing. So
Speaker 2: there is literally nothing stopping something from coming from nothing.
Speaker 3: I really want to draw your attention to this word nothing.
Speaker 3: Never in my history on this earth have I come
Speaker 3: across one word. This costs so much confusion as this
Speaker 3: word nothing. When we read the scientific literature and it
Speaker 3: says that this singularity, this big bang happened from nothing
Speaker 3: at all.
Speaker 2: I'm going to stop you right there. That's not a
Speaker 2: thing you would read in the scientific literature. That's a
Speaker 2: thing that you would read on apologetics blogs.
Speaker 3: What does nothing mean, it means no thing. It means
Speaker 3: not anything. It means nothing at all.
Speaker 2: Nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all. Stupid
Speaker 2: texted flander not in the scientific literature, doesn't you know?
Speaker 2: I really wish Kraus had never written that goddamn book,
Speaker 2: or at least given it a title that didn't make
Speaker 2: it so easy for apologists to project their incorrect interpretation
Speaker 2: of what it means onto their already lackluster understanding of cosmology.
Speaker 3: So this is what we're left with as an alternative,
Speaker 3: that everything exploded out of nothing at all. Now you
Speaker 3: tell me which is the most plausible explanation for how
Speaker 3: everything got here, That we have a transcendent God who's
Speaker 3: outside of space and time. In fact, he creates space
Speaker 3: and time and all matter at the moment of creation,
Speaker 3: or nothing at all exploded and here we are billions
Speaker 3: of years later.
Speaker 2: Well, the nothing at all seems most likely to me,
Speaker 2: given the lack of laws of physics that would stop
Speaker 2: nothing from doing that. But this is where I'm supposed
Speaker 2: to ask who created God, to which you get to say,
Speaker 2: God has always been there, so he does not need
Speaker 2: a creator, to which I get to say, then why
Speaker 2: can the energy that existed before the Big Bang not
Speaker 2: have been the thing that's always been there, thus not
Speaker 2: needing a creator.
Speaker 3: Now, there's lots of other things we can say about
Speaker 3: the Big Bang.
Speaker 4: We're not going to do that today.
Speaker 3: I just want to point out one thing in fact,
Speaker 3: each of the things we'll talk about here. There's multiple
Speaker 3: areas we could explore, but I just want to talk
Speaker 3: about one thing for each of these four. And I'm
Speaker 3: not the only one who feels this way. There's an astronomer,
Speaker 3: Halton Arp. He says, in my opinion, the observations speak
Speaker 3: a different language. They call for a different view of
Speaker 3: the universe. I believe that the Big Bang theory should
Speaker 3: be what's that word replaced, because it is no longer
Speaker 3: a valid theory.
Speaker 2: Halton Arp was one of a handful of astronomers who
Speaker 2: thought that the red shift of distant objects was not
Speaker 2: due to the expansion of spacetime, but was an intrinsic
Speaker 2: property of the objects. I'm not going to pretend to
Speaker 2: understand that hypothesis, but I see nothing indicating that it
Speaker 2: would call into question the age of the universe. So
Speaker 2: if Arp was right, which he almost certainly was not,
Speaker 2: that still doesn't get you any closer to a six
Speaker 2: thousand year old universe, And worth mentioning is that, well,
Speaker 2: this was a fringe idea, it was taken seriously by astronomers,
Speaker 2: and the reason I can say that it was almost
Speaker 2: certainly not correct is because astronomers kept testing the predictions
Speaker 2: of the model and over time found it to be lacking.
Speaker 3: And doctor Arper's not alone. There's lots of other scientists
Speaker 3: who feel the same way. There's been an open letter
Speaker 3: kind of put out there, and these aren't scientists who
Speaker 3: are Christians.
Speaker 2: Is the open letter the scientific dissent from Darwinism by chance?
Speaker 2: Because not only does that have nothing to do with
Speaker 2: the Big Bang, it was a dishonest pile of hot
Speaker 2: garbage that used Weasley language to trick people into signing it.
Speaker 2: The statement they signed on to said we are skeptical
Speaker 2: of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
Speaker 2: selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination
Speaker 2: of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There's
Speaker 2: two issues here. First is that anyone who knows the
Speaker 2: basics of evolution is already aware that random mutation and
Speaker 2: natural selection are not responsible for the entirety of the
Speaker 2: complexity of life. So obviously someone who knows about evolution
Speaker 2: would be skeptical if someone were to claim that they
Speaker 2: were and carefully examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory
Speaker 2: is literally the job description for every evolutionary biologist there is,
Speaker 2: so the fact that they were able to get a
Speaker 2: measly thousand signatories to the statement is really not surprising
Speaker 2: and unimpressive.
Speaker 3: All right, So the second thing, let's talk about this
Speaker 3: rib from Eve. I have been personally ridy killed for
Speaker 3: this one on more than one occasion.
Speaker 2: Given how far off base you were for your last point,
Speaker 2: maybe that should prompt some re examination of your beliefs
Speaker 2: about this.
Speaker 3: If you can picture somebody snickering and said, hey, hey,
Speaker 3: go ask him where he thinks the first woman came from.
Speaker 3: You know, he thinks it came from a rib, you know,
Speaker 3: from the first man.
Speaker 2: This is actually where some more linguistic nuance comes into play.
Speaker 2: A decent argument could be made that the word translated
Speaker 2: as rib would be better translated as side, and this
Speaker 2: matches with the Telmudic tradition that Adam and Eve were
Speaker 2: both created as one single being, both male and female,
Speaker 2: with God separating them once he created Eve. From Adam's side.
Speaker 2: This doesn't matter a whole lot the grand scheme of things,
Speaker 2: but it certainly does leave us with an interpretation that
Speaker 2: makes it way easier to be transaffirming, which I suspect
Speaker 2: this guy would not appreciate. But this is a great
Speaker 2: example of what I was talking about earlier. You can
Speaker 2: look at the existence of trans people through the lens
Speaker 2: of scripture and come to two opposite conclusions. God made
Speaker 2: the man and woman separate beings no trans people, or
Speaker 2: God made the male and female in one body. Adam
Speaker 2: went by they them pronouns before Eve was made, and
Speaker 2: in the New Testament we actually see the statement that
Speaker 2: there is no male or female. We are all one
Speaker 2: in Christ Jesus. So through this scriptural lens, God seems
Speaker 2: to be a bit of a gender abolitionist. Same scripture,
Speaker 2: different interpretation, and both sides of the argument can be
Speaker 2: pretty well supported, leaving us once again in a place
Speaker 2: where you are not actually seeing the world through the
Speaker 2: lens of scripture. You are seeing scripture through the lens
Speaker 2: of your other beliefs and letting those beliefs inform your interpretation.
Speaker 3: Okay, So, as always we go back to scripture, our
Speaker 3: worldviews based on scripture. So what does the scripture have
Speaker 3: to say about the first woman just two twenty two
Speaker 3: and the rib that the Lord God had taken from
Speaker 3: the man he made into a woman. Oh so many
Speaker 3: things here. We could talk about this rib and things
Speaker 3: that it symbolizes. But again, I just want to stick
Speaker 3: to one thing. Could God have made Eve out of
Speaker 3: nothing at all?
Speaker 2: Nothing at all?
Speaker 4: Nothing at all, nothing at.
Speaker 2: All, stupid dirty flander. Well, according to what you seem
Speaker 2: to be saying earlier, creating things out of nothing is impossible,
Speaker 2: So I guess not.
Speaker 3: Just with his voice, absolutely, But yet he takes the
Speaker 3: time to tell us that he caused Adam to go
Speaker 3: into his sleep, which is the first anesthesiology. If you
Speaker 3: want to look at it that way, I.
Speaker 2: Mean I might look at it that way if it
Speaker 2: said something more along the lines of and thus the
Speaker 2: Lord God did administer novakane and quantities appropriate for Adam's
Speaker 2: body mass. But if you're going for there's advanced signs
Speaker 2: in the Bible, a guy went to sleep is on
Speaker 2: the weaker side of things. I'm skipping ahead a bit
Speaker 2: at this point. He just takes a long ass time
Speaker 2: to say that most of your bones are covered by
Speaker 2: a membrane of blood, vessels, and nerves called the periostium,
Speaker 2: which supplies the bones with blood and directs their growth
Speaker 2: and healing.
Speaker 3: Now, the periostium, when it comes to the rib, will
Speaker 3: do something absolutely amazing. If you take a rib out
Speaker 3: of a person and you leave that sheath intact, you
Speaker 3: leave the periossium intact, it'll initiate bone growth and a
Speaker 3: whole new rib will grow in its place.
Speaker 2: Okay, this isn't the first time I've heard this claim,
Speaker 2: so I already kind of knew where to look. This
Speaker 2: is not true for starters, He's got his anatomy mixed up.
Speaker 2: They didn't look at the periostium. They looked at the perichondrium,
Speaker 2: which is basically the same as the periostium, but for
Speaker 2: cartilage instead of bone. They were also looking at mice,
Speaker 2: not humans. The study was essentially just establishing a link
Speaker 2: between the perichondrium and the ability to regenerate cartilage. Now,
Speaker 2: don't get me wrong, there is evidence to suggest that
Speaker 2: ribs regenerate better than other bones in the body. But
Speaker 2: the human example they looked at in this study was
Speaker 2: a case study where someone's rib was partially removed and
Speaker 2: after six months it was partially repaired. Now, to be fair,
Speaker 2: it is entirely possible that there has been a follow
Speaker 2: up study that looked at the periostium that I just
Speaker 2: haven't found. And I will acknowledge that while I did
Speaker 2: look for it, I didn't look all that hard, because
Speaker 2: ultimately this doesn't matter. I fail to see how ribs
Speaker 2: are the bone in the body that regenerates the quickest,
Speaker 2: is in any way support for God made an entire
Speaker 2: new person out of material from this one guy's rib.
Speaker 2: And that's without even getting into the hole. If Eve
Speaker 2: was made from Adam's rib, then she's a genetic clone
Speaker 2: of him. So the first woman was genetically male thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, personally, I don't think that's much of a goatcha.
Speaker 2: This is God we're dealing with. He can magic an
Speaker 2: X chromosome the same as he magic the entire universe.
Speaker 2: But if we're turning to magic for our explanations here,
Speaker 2: then why does it matter that he used a bone
Speaker 2: that heals slightly faster than the other bones. He could
Speaker 2: also magically heal Adam afterward, right like regardless of which
Speaker 2: bone he used. So why does this matter?
Speaker 3: That's not something a lot of people know. I've talked
Speaker 3: to mds about this, and there's many that didn't even
Speaker 3: know this until they began to do the research.
Speaker 4: But it's true, and.
Speaker 3: In fact, it's the only bone in the body that
Speaker 3: we know of that if you take it out and
Speaker 3: you leave the periossum intac that the bone will grow
Speaker 3: right back in the place of where you took the bone.
Speaker 4: Isn't that amazing?
Speaker 3: Do you think God knew that when he took the
Speaker 3: rib from Adam?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is confirming for me that he was
Speaker 2: thinking about the mouse study, because I feel like it
Speaker 2: would have been super easy to find a study where
Speaker 2: a human regrew an entire bone from a little tissue
Speaker 2: nubbin like that. So he's wrong about it happening in people.
Speaker 2: And even if it did, it would take months. So
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter for the Adam and Eve story not
Speaker 2: to mention the growing of an entire new person out
Speaker 2: of a rib bone is not even on the table here.
Speaker 2: The only stuff that's been done on humans that is
Speaker 2: in any way relevant is that sometimes surgeons will use
Speaker 2: the periostiuan material from a patient's ribs in order to
Speaker 2: stimulate bone healing in other parts of the body. I
Speaker 2: have found nothing to indicate that any person has ever
Speaker 2: regrown a full rib bone in the way that he
Speaker 2: is describing. But the mouse study is one of the
Speaker 2: top results for every search I've done so far, along
Speaker 2: with a similar study done on rabbits in nineteen twelve.
Speaker 2: So here's a question for you. Then, if the results
Speaker 2: of the mouse and rabbit studies are applicable to humans,
Speaker 2: why did God apparently give all mammals the ability to
Speaker 2: regrow ribs rather than just humans. This actually had the
Speaker 2: potential to be a sliver of evidence for creation. If
Speaker 2: it were only humans, God's ultimate creation who could regrow ribs,
Speaker 2: and it was stated in the Bible that Adam actually
Speaker 2: regrew the rib rather than it being entirely silent on
Speaker 2: his recovery, then that would actually kind of point there.
Speaker 2: But as it stands, we're just left at a spot
Speaker 2: where his lack of attention to detail has made him
Speaker 2: factually incorrect. But he's presenting it so confidently that people
Speaker 2: in the audience who don't immediately recognize common creation as
Speaker 2: talking points will probably think that he actually knows what
Speaker 2: he's talking about and help. He was just bragging that
Speaker 2: he knows more about this than medical doctors, so he
Speaker 2: must be pretty knowledgeable about it. Right, He's either ignorant
Speaker 2: or lying, and either way the result is the same.
Speaker 2: He's using dishonesty to keep his audience ignorant.
Speaker 3: The next thing I'll point out is that the there
Speaker 3: are many important cell types inside of a rib in
Speaker 3: the bone marrow. There's stem cells, if you've probably heard
Speaker 3: that in the news over the last ten to fifteen years,
Speaker 3: not just one type, but there's multipotent, plural, potent, unipotent,
Speaker 3: there's lots of different types of stem cells. Well, what
Speaker 3: can we do with the stem cell?
Speaker 2: So I know, I said I wasn't really going to
Speaker 2: get into the whole X chromosome thing, but it seems
Speaker 2: as though he is actually describing the process that God
Speaker 2: used to make Eve as human cloning. So that brings
Speaker 2: us right back to the question of where her X
Speaker 2: chromosome came from. And if it's God magic, then why
Speaker 2: go through the cloning process at all instead of just
Speaker 2: God magicing the whole thing.
Speaker 3: Hold that thought right, Hold that for just a moment,
Speaker 3: because we want to go into chromosomes just for a second,
Speaker 3: kind of a sidebar.
Speaker 4: Then come back to this idea of stem cells.
Speaker 2: At least he's going to address it. Let's see where
Speaker 2: he goes with that. After we skip his painfully slow
Speaker 2: explanation of some basic biology, he just takes a long
Speaker 2: ass time to say xx usually equals female and xy
Speaker 2: usually equals And of course he didn't use the word
Speaker 2: usually because that leaves the door open for sex to
Speaker 2: not be binary, and we can't have that anyway.
Speaker 3: Skipping ahead now, this is this is kind of interesting
Speaker 3: to me that Adam having an X chromosome would have
Speaker 3: had all the genetic material required to make a woman.
Speaker 4: Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 2: So Eve was genetically identical to Adam, except God chopped
Speaker 2: off the Y and gave her a second X identical
Speaker 2: to the first. Sure why they're not. That's basically the
Speaker 2: same as saying God magic, though, so I'm left wondering
Speaker 2: why you even have to pretend that there's any signs
Speaker 2: here to begin with. Though, to be fair, I have
Speaker 2: often asked creations to explain the mechanism that God used
Speaker 2: to do his creating, and well, this explanation still leaves
Speaker 2: us with way more questions than answers. At least, it's
Speaker 2: an attempt gold star for being the first creationists I've
Speaker 2: ever seen at least try to explain the mechanisms that
Speaker 2: God used.
Speaker 3: All the genetic material is there in that X Y
Speaker 3: chromosome to make a woman. So with the x y chromosomes,
Speaker 3: there's something else that we need to understand. Is Okay,
Speaker 3: let's say God took a cell, one of the stem
Speaker 3: cells from the rib and he was going to fashion
Speaker 3: Eve from it.
Speaker 4: Well, it's an X Y. That's not the right chromosome.
Speaker 4: Did you know that if you take the X Y
Speaker 4: chromosome and you strip the Y away, that the X
Speaker 4: will replicate itself and you'll end up with x X.
Speaker 2: Hey, maybe this guy will surprise me and end up
Speaker 2: being progressive, because here we are at a place where
Speaker 2: he's willing to acknowledge that sex is not an immutable characteristic.
Speaker 2: I mean, I doubt that he's correct about cells doing that,
Speaker 2: given how off he was about the ribs, But I
Speaker 2: honestly can't find any information on that that doesn't come
Speaker 2: from Reddit. Reddit does seem to agree with me on it,
Speaker 2: But the only scientific stuff I found was once again,
Speaker 2: mouse studies, and it wasn't about what happens when you
Speaker 2: remove a Y chromosome from a cell. It was an
Speaker 2: experiment to test a new gene therapy where you can
Speaker 2: replace a disordered chromosome with a whole, new, healthy one.
Speaker 2: And as part of this procedure, they did also replace
Speaker 2: a Y chromome with an X in those mice. Sorry,
Speaker 2: not in the mice, we didn't even get that far.
Speaker 2: It was mouse stem cells. Once again, though I will
Speaker 2: acknowledge that I am out of my depth here. I
Speaker 2: don't know what the consequences of replacing the Y chromosome
Speaker 2: with an X were, nor do I understand why they
Speaker 2: did it. But I do understand enough to know that
Speaker 2: this is not even close to what this guy just described.
Speaker 4: I'm not saying God did it this way. I have
Speaker 4: no idea.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, well, then consider your gold star revoked.
Speaker 3: But this is scientifically possible that God would have taken
Speaker 3: one of those stem cells, stripped away the Y, the
Speaker 3: X would have replicated itself, and now he has a
Speaker 3: nucleus with a chrome with the right chromosomes to make
Speaker 3: a woman. What did he have to do from there again,
Speaker 3: I'm not saying he did it this way. I have
Speaker 3: no idea scientifically this is possible.
Speaker 2: Ah, Given the graphic he's got up, I think I
Speaker 2: see what happened here. If I'm right about how he
Speaker 2: got to the whole x chromosome will duplicate itself thing,
Speaker 2: then he is way off peace. What he's got up
Speaker 2: is a diagram of somatic cell nuclear transfer, a clonal
Speaker 2: procedure where an excel has this nucleus removed, and the
Speaker 2: nucleus of a somatic cell that is, any cell in
Speaker 2: the body aside from the sperm or egg, is implanted
Speaker 2: into the egg cell, which is then implanted into a surrogate, who,
Speaker 2: if all goes well, becomes pregnant with a clone that
Speaker 2: is genetically identical to the organism whose somatic cells were used.
Speaker 2: So to me, it looks like this guy misunderstood the
Speaker 2: process to be about removing specific chromosomes from a cell
Speaker 2: and then having other chromosomes duplicated to fill in the gap.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what he thinks surrogate you means, or
Speaker 2: who he thinks was the surrogate for the atom clone
Speaker 2: that became Eve. But given that he's hedging all of
Speaker 2: this by pointing out that he doesn't know if God
Speaker 2: actually did it this way. I don't think he cares
Speaker 2: enough to actually understand what he's saying, though, if he
Speaker 2: keeps going at this rate, he might give Matt Powell
Speaker 2: a run for his money when it comes to ridiculous misunderstandings. Sadly,
Speaker 2: he takes too long to say anything for me to
Speaker 2: put this into a montage, but he's got the basics down.
Speaker 3: You take that nucleus from adam cell, the one that
Speaker 3: now has the XX for the twenty third chromosome, and
Speaker 3: you put it in what's called a nucleated egg cell,
Speaker 3: So an eggs without that is nucleus.
Speaker 4: You put it right there in the nucleus.
Speaker 2: Where do he get the egg cell?
Speaker 3: And what what happened is you get a female that
Speaker 3: develops from that cell.
Speaker 2: Notably, this thing that you get that's developing is called
Speaker 2: a zygoat. I'll acknowledge that I may have been wrong
Speaker 2: about how he arrived at the two X chromosomes thing.
Speaker 2: His misunderstanding didn't quite make it to power levels. But
Speaker 2: how did the zygoat turn into Eve? Did God have
Speaker 2: a portable external uterus machine? Fired up and ready to go.
Speaker 2: Did Adam have to wait for the newborn baby Eve
Speaker 2: to grow up before, you know, finding out if she
Speaker 2: was a good helper for him? And if there's time
Speaker 2: for pregnancy, birth and growing up in the period between
Speaker 2: Genesis two twenty two where God created Eve and Genesis
Speaker 2: two twenty four, where Eve is declared to be Adam's wife,
Speaker 2: then why could there not be billions of years in
Speaker 2: the earlier bits of the creation story. Sure it's still
Speaker 2: out of order, but we're already out of spot where
Speaker 2: we're adding a whole bunch of into the Bible that
Speaker 2: is not indicated by the text at all. So what's
Speaker 2: a little metaphorical interpretation going to do at this point point?
Speaker 4: But again, from a scientific point of view, the rib
Speaker 4: may have been the best possible bone for God to use.
Speaker 4: It may have been the only possible bone for God
Speaker 4: to use to do this.
Speaker 2: I think you might be forgetting something here. He's God.
Speaker 2: Are all things not possible for God? He could have
Speaker 2: used Adam's nipple had he been so inclined. I really
Speaker 2: don't get why you insist on trying to stuff science
Speaker 2: into this part of the Bible will ignoring the fact
Speaker 2: that your interpretation of the rest of the story is
Speaker 2: completely contradicted by science.
Speaker 4: Very very fascinating. So again, this is a theory.
Speaker 2: No, it isn't. Scientifically speaking. You've got a hypothesis at best,
Speaker 2: and that's being generous. It's really more of a yarn
Speaker 2: and pushpin conspiracy board type of thing.
Speaker 3: What do we say about theories We hold firmly to scripture,
Speaker 3: we hold loosely to theories.
Speaker 4: I'm not married to this theory at all.
Speaker 2: Good because it's wrong. But you calling it a theory
Speaker 2: does not place it anywhere close to the same level
Speaker 2: as the theory of evolution.
Speaker 3: All right, let's talk about a snake with legs again.
Speaker 3: Our biblical worldview demands that we start with scripture. What
Speaker 3: does the scripture have to say about snakes and this
Speaker 3: idea that they may have had legs? In Genesis three fourteen,
Speaker 3: then the Lord God said to the serpent, because you
Speaker 3: have done this, cursed, are you more than all the livestock,
Speaker 3: and more than any animal of the field. On your
Speaker 3: belly you shall go and dust you shall eat all
Speaker 3: the days of your life.
Speaker 2: Yes, notably, there is no indication here that the snake
Speaker 2: is anything other than just an ordinary run of the
Speaker 2: mill talking snake. It is cursed above all the live stock.
Speaker 2: It is not cursed above all of the other fallen angels.
Speaker 2: This is an ideological myth, a story that's used to
Speaker 2: explain something's origins. Snakes crawl on their bellies and try
Speaker 2: to bite people because God cursed them for convincing the
Speaker 2: humans to disobey God.
Speaker 3: Now when I read this, I picture before this happened
Speaker 3: that snakes had legs.
Speaker 2: Fun fact, snakes actually grow tiny little leg buds in
Speaker 2: their embryos development. They stop growing and get reabsorbed. But yeah,
Speaker 2: snakes begin their lives with legs, which I think is
Speaker 2: a really cool example of evolution in action. Snakes are
Speaker 2: classified as tetrapods. Tetrapod literally means four footed bonus. This
Speaker 2: is how the more science minded Christians can make evolution
Speaker 2: fit with the Bible and even pretend that this represents
Speaker 2: some advanced scientific knowledge on display. God knew that the
Speaker 2: snakes of our time are descended from animals that had legs,
Speaker 2: and that they grow little leg buds during their development,
Speaker 2: so he told us that that's what we'd find thousands
Speaker 2: of years ago when Genesis was written. It's not much,
Speaker 2: but honestly, that's way more impressive than anything else I've
Speaker 2: seen touted as science in the Bible. But usually the
Speaker 2: people most interested in finding science in the Bible also
Speaker 2: deny evolution, so they can't use it without bringing attention
Speaker 2: to some key aspects of evolution, like how legs are
Speaker 2: closely related to the hawk's genes, which can have a
Speaker 2: massive impact on the body plan of an animal with
Speaker 2: relatively minor changes. To oversimplify, when making a snake longer,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of little bits that need to
Speaker 2: be added. You need to add another vertebra, It needs
Speaker 2: to be connected with blood, vessels, muscles, and nerves other things.
Speaker 2: The odds of all the mutations needed to do all
Speaker 2: of that again at all the same time are negligible
Speaker 2: to the point of impossibility. But with some fairly minor
Speaker 2: changes to the hawks gens, instead of having to mutate
Speaker 2: the genetic material to result in a whole new system
Speaker 2: of vertebrae, it can just say, do another one of
Speaker 2: those bits and copy the whole thing in one go.
Speaker 4: And I don't know.
Speaker 3: For many many years, Christians have been ridiculed about this idea.
Speaker 2: Snakes with legs, Yeah, I have occasionally poke fun at
Speaker 2: the snake with legs thing, but generally I focus more
Speaker 2: on the fact that it's a talking snake because I
Speaker 2: feel like that's the bigger issue here.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, maybe I'm missing the elephant in the room.
Speaker 3: The snake talked, right, Well, Kim, are you gonna address that?
Speaker 3: I get asked this question a lot. No, I'm not
Speaker 3: going to address that.
Speaker 2: Why Probably because snakes don't have anything even remotely resembling
Speaker 2: vocal cords, so you wouldn't have been able to pretend
Speaker 2: that you found something sciency that supports that. But you
Speaker 2: can find sciencey stuff that talks about snakes having had
Speaker 2: legs in the past. So if you ignore the ninety
Speaker 2: nine percent of it that has to do with evolution,
Speaker 2: you can pretend like that makes the genesis story he
Speaker 2: seems significantly plausible. Or that's my guess. At any rate,
Speaker 2: I haven't actually watched ahead yet.
Speaker 3: It is supernatural for an animal to talk. That's outside
Speaker 3: of nature. I don't need to come up with some
Speaker 3: kind of scientific explanation for something that's supernatural.
Speaker 4: Not even going to try to go there.
Speaker 2: Then, why did you bring up cloning when talking about
Speaker 2: making Eve out of Adam's rib Was that not supernatural?
Speaker 2: You really think that God had an external uterus machine
Speaker 2: of some kind to grow an embryo, and that Atom
Speaker 2: waited for the child to grow up before marrying her. Actually,
Speaker 2: given the track record to the Bible stories, I'm being
Speaker 2: very generous assuming that Adam waited for her to grow up.
Speaker 2: But that's a whole other can of worms.
Speaker 3: Did you know that pythons actually have legs, kind of
Speaker 3: towards the rear of the skeleton, where where the hips
Speaker 3: should be. Now they don't have hips, but they have
Speaker 3: two legs, and they're this floating and muscle tissue.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I hate being right. What am I supposed to say?
Speaker 2: Now I've already covered this. I'm skipping ahead. I'll pop
Speaker 2: back in if he says anything interesting.
Speaker 4: But this is interesting.
Speaker 3: In two thousand and three, in Argentina, scientists found a
Speaker 3: fossilized snake that had a hip and it had legs.
Speaker 2: Yes, the fossil record does show a pretty clear picture
Speaker 2: of the lineage that led to snakes losing their legs
Speaker 2: for limbs first, and then hind limbs. I'm unsure how
Speaker 2: that helps your case. Do you think that this snake
Speaker 2: is one that existed before God cursed snakes to not
Speaker 2: have legs. Also, like, why is God only mostly removing
Speaker 2: the legs? Did he get lazy part way through before
Speaker 2: deciding it was good enough? Weird that an all powerful
Speaker 2: God got lazy.
Speaker 3: But this is interesting because science used scientists still believe
Speaker 3: that snakes used to have legs. In fact, they think
Speaker 3: snakes evolved from a sea creature called a Moses sore,
Speaker 3: and they had these legs in the ocean, they lost
Speaker 3: their legs, and then they migrated onto land.
Speaker 2: Absolutely not. Probably snakes and Mosesaurs are in the same
Speaker 2: order Squamata, but that does not mean that snakes evolve
Speaker 2: from Mosesaurs. Squamata is basically all of the lizards. There
Speaker 2: are nearly twelve thousand extant species of Squamata, and while
Speaker 2: they do certainly share a common ancestor with Mosesaurs, probably
Speaker 2: did not evolve from them. Although this is a pretty
Speaker 2: good example of what this guy complains about with theories
Speaker 2: changing and whatnot, because there aren't a lot of moses
Speaker 2: or specimens, so we don't know as much about them
Speaker 2: as we would like, so there is an ongoing scientific
Speaker 2: debate about their placement on the taxonomic tree, and while
Speaker 2: snakes being descended from Mosesaurs is one of the less
Speaker 2: likely options, it is in fact an option.
Speaker 3: However, this is just to show you how fluid some
Speaker 3: of these theories are. This is a land snake, it's
Speaker 3: not a marine snake.
Speaker 2: Fun fact, I thought that it was pretty well established
Speaker 2: that snakes did not descend from Mosesaurs going into this,
Speaker 2: so I had a whole paragraph written about how they
Speaker 2: totally didn't. It's preposterous that you would even think that.
Speaker 2: Come on, man, there are great examples of us updating
Speaker 2: our understanding when we get new information. But this ain't it. Well,
Speaker 2: then I discovered that I was wrong. Yeah, most relevant
Speaker 2: scientists will tell you that snakes probably didn't descend from Mosesaurs.
Speaker 2: But the answer is much less sure than I thought
Speaker 2: it was. Given this new information that I learned, should
Speaker 2: I have remain firm in my initial conviction in order
Speaker 2: to avoid changing my theory? Or is it perhaps a
Speaker 2: good thing that I was willing to acknowledge that I
Speaker 2: was wrong about something and so update it to be
Speaker 2: correct when presented with new information. I would suggest that
Speaker 2: the thing you are presenting as a problem. The fluidity
Speaker 2: of our theories is actually their main strength. When a
Speaker 2: scientist learns that they were wrong about something, that is
Speaker 2: exciting because now they're one step closer to being right,
Speaker 2: and they understand more about how the world works than
Speaker 2: before they began their work. But you are stuck with
Speaker 2: your interpretation of genesis. So instead of learning cool newsh
Speaker 2: you have to either figure out how it fits in
Speaker 2: with your predetermined conclusions, or else figure out how to
Speaker 2: pretend that the cool news is actually wrong.
Speaker 3: Though, and yet it had legs, it had a hip bone.
Speaker 3: So their theory needs to be changed. And this is
Speaker 3: why we hold firmly to scripture. We owed loosely to
Speaker 3: theories because theories change all the time.
Speaker 2: Hey, hey, Budy, I got some bad news for you
Speaker 2: about scripture. Not only do we know that it's been
Speaker 2: changing as an scribes copied out, but every time a
Speaker 2: new organization decides to do a new translation of the
Speaker 2: Bible or an old organization issues an update to their translation,
Speaker 2: scripture is changing. As far as I can tell, he's
Speaker 2: been using the NRSV Bible, the first version of which
Speaker 2: was published in nineteen eighty nine. It is very different
Speaker 2: from the Tindale Bible, which is largely credited with being
Speaker 2: the first English translation and was published in the early
Speaker 2: fifteen hundreds. Scripture changed in those four hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 2: So which one should we be holding firmly to?
Speaker 3: And why very very fluid these these theories of evolution?
Speaker 3: Why is that because we have no direct observation into
Speaker 3: the past. All we have is fossil evidence.
Speaker 2: I hate to break it to you, buddy, but fossil
Speaker 2: evidence is literally direct observation into the past. What do
Speaker 2: you think of fossil is exactly Okay.
Speaker 3: The last thing I'm going to look at here is
Speaker 3: the global flood. This is perhaps the biggest one, I think,
Speaker 3: next to creation on Christians maybe hanging their head down
Speaker 3: a little bit. Are feeling a little a little strange
Speaker 3: about talking about the global flood?
Speaker 4: You don't need to do that. There's so much evidence.
Speaker 3: You think if the world was covered with water, there
Speaker 3: would be evidence.
Speaker 2: Correct, But instead we find a bunch of evidence demonstrating
Speaker 2: about such an event did not occur, some of which
Speaker 2: I went over in the video whose thumbnail should be
Speaker 2: popping on screen now link is in the description for that,
Speaker 2: as well as the curd.
Speaker 4: In the corner.
Speaker 2: I think it's this corner that you can click on
Speaker 2: and it'll take you to that video.
Speaker 3: Oh, there's plenty of evidence, but we're gonna look at one.
Speaker 3: We're gonna look at one today. That should be enough.
Speaker 4: Again, we go to scripture worldview for.
Speaker 3: After seven more days, I will send rain on the
Speaker 3: earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will
Speaker 3: wipe out from the face of the land every living
Speaker 3: thing that I have made.
Speaker 2: So if your worldview is actually correct, then God is
Speaker 2: a genocidal monster, got it.
Speaker 3: This is a catastrophic event. There must be some kind
Speaker 3: of evidence that was left behind and to and again
Speaker 3: looking at this evidence, we need to understand about a tiny,
Speaker 3: tiny little creature called foraminifera.
Speaker 2: Once again, I am going to summarize what he says
Speaker 2: for you in order to save some time. But these
Speaker 2: guys do essentially the same thing as the coco lithophors
Speaker 2: that I've talked about before do. They are microscopic marine
Speaker 2: organisms that form hardshells that when they die, collect on
Speaker 2: the seafloor in a calcareous ooze that, given the right
Speaker 2: conditions and enough time, will turn into chalk. So regarding
Speaker 2: how long this process takes, he says.
Speaker 4: And this is a very very slow process.
Speaker 3: When we look at this process today, we think it
Speaker 3: happens at about the rate of point zero zero eight
Speaker 3: inches a year.
Speaker 4: So what does that mean.
Speaker 3: That means in a thousand years you would have eight
Speaker 3: inches of this sediment build up.
Speaker 4: It's very very slow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, takes a long ass time. So please don't tell
Speaker 2: me he's about to bring up the massive thick chalk
Speaker 2: beds that exist all over the world. I kind of
Speaker 2: think that definitively proves the idea of nose flood wrong.
Speaker 2: They are way too thick to have formed in a
Speaker 2: single year long flood.
Speaker 4: This why chalk is found on a lot of different continents.
Speaker 4: I have some listed here.
Speaker 3: It's found all over North America's found in Europe, Ireland, Poland, Germany,
Speaker 3: Turkey down south to Israel. It's found on the Australian continent.
Speaker 3: In the US, it's found from Nebraska to Texas and
Speaker 3: from Georgia or Alabamas used me to Colorado.
Speaker 4: So big, big geographic areas of this white chalk.
Speaker 3: And it only forms as marine sediments in other words,
Speaker 3: and only forms in water.
Speaker 2: Yes, and as you already pointed out, it does so
Speaker 2: extremely slowly.
Speaker 3: And when we find these chalk layers in all these
Speaker 3: different places around the globe, they have the same type
Speaker 3: of fossils, and we see the same types of layers
Speaker 3: above and below them. This is a strong indication that
Speaker 3: the entire Earth was underwater at the same time.
Speaker 2: It occurred in a lot of places. Does not mean
Speaker 2: that it occurred in all the places. Just look at
Speaker 2: where it's happening now. I forget whether I cut it out.
Speaker 2: But when does ribing the little microscopic guys whose skeletons
Speaker 2: make up chalk, he pointed out that they are in
Speaker 2: every sea and ocean on the planet. So that's over
Speaker 2: seventy percent of the surface of the Earth that could
Speaker 2: potentially be forming chalk right now. That does not mean
Speaker 2: that the entire Earth is currently flooded. There's also the
Speaker 2: problem of biomass. If enough of these organisms were alive
Speaker 2: simultaneously to form that amount of chalk, then they are
Speaker 2: all that would have been able to survive on the Earth.
Speaker 2: And that's being generous. They actually choke themselves out as well,
Speaker 2: and that's without even getting into all of the other
Speaker 2: organic limestone that would have to have been formed in
Speaker 2: the same flood event. I ran the numbers on that
Speaker 2: a while ago, and while I'm not going to show
Speaker 2: the calculations again, here link in the description if you
Speaker 2: want to see that, I will share the results, being
Speaker 2: extremely conservative and then cutting the final number and a
Speaker 2: half just to be extra generous to the creationists. You
Speaker 2: would need eleven and a half earths whose surfaces are
Speaker 2: entirely covered with Empire state buildings filled to the brim
Speaker 2: with snails in order to have enough material to form
Speaker 2: all of the organic limestone that creationists say had to
Speaker 2: have been the result of Noah's flood. You're going to
Speaker 2: need more than a few large rock formations that were
Speaker 2: formed in water to overcome the biomass problem.
Speaker 3: So in this sediment, the picture that I've just shown,
Speaker 3: we find some very interesting mix of fossils. Six and
Speaker 3: a half foot tall birds. That's a huge bird, right,
Speaker 3: not talking about an ostrich or an ema or anything
Speaker 3: like that, talking about just a normal bird. Twenty foot
Speaker 3: long fish. If you're fishermen, you'd love to catch something
Speaker 3: like that. Thirty foot dinosaurs, thirteen foot wide oysters. Imagine
Speaker 3: the pearl it might be inside some of those things.
Speaker 3: I find mosasaurs nearly fifty feet long, an plesiosaurs, all
Speaker 3: these different things in the same sediments.
Speaker 4: What are they have in common?
Speaker 2: I know they're all extinct species that can only ever
Speaker 2: been found in the layers that are approximately the same
Speaker 2: age as each other. Almost like all of those things
Speaker 2: can exist simultaneously and sometimes get fossilized.
Speaker 4: I think I just gave it away.
Speaker 3: They're found in Kansas in the same sediment the same
Speaker 3: Chalky said.
Speaker 4: It in Kansas. Now I think about this.
Speaker 3: I'm always telling people to be critical thinkers, ask questions,
Speaker 3: be curious, no matter what you're being taught.
Speaker 2: Well, the first words out of your mouth after introducing
Speaker 2: yourself in this video, where about how we need to
Speaker 2: not do that with scripture. Why do you have a
Speaker 2: double standard here?
Speaker 4: Ask the questions.
Speaker 3: If you don't understand something, something doesn't make sense, ask
Speaker 3: the questions. And particularly when it comes to evolutionary ideology,
Speaker 3: we need to ask these questions. And the question I
Speaker 3: would ask here is, since when do land dwelling dinosaurs, air,
Speaker 3: flying birds, fish? When did these live in the same
Speaker 3: environment to be buried together at the same time.
Speaker 2: They didn't, but they did live at the same time.
Speaker 2: And the thing with fossils and chalk is that the
Speaker 2: non marine ones like dinosaurs and birds are incredibly rare.
Speaker 2: Most fossils are of organisms that died in their own environment,
Speaker 2: but sometimes catastrophic events can mix the environments a little bit,
Speaker 2: and so you get a land dwelling creature whose remains
Speaker 2: were swept out to sea, resulting in land dinosaur fossils
Speaker 2: in chalk. Again, though this is incredibly rare. By far,
Speaker 2: the most common fossils that you find in chalk are marine,
Speaker 2: not just marine, but primarily the types of marine creatures
Speaker 2: that lived on the seafloor rather than higher up in
Speaker 2: the water column. So yeah, neat fact not evidence for
Speaker 2: nose flood.
Speaker 3: Here's one from Michael Tice. He says, we are talking
Speaker 3: about a time talking about the Earth's past when if
Speaker 3: you are looking at the Earth from space, you would
Speaker 3: hardly see any land mass at all. It would have
Speaker 3: almost been an ocean world. When we go to the museums,
Speaker 3: when we open up the textbooks, when our kids are
Speaker 3: learning about these things in school, they're not learning this.
Speaker 2: Are you really quoting a professor at a school who
Speaker 2: teaches this to support the idea that nobody is teaching this.
Speaker 2: This is like when people post links to news articles
Speaker 2: along with a complaint that nobody's covering this. That's not
Speaker 2: how that works anyway. Just read the quote again, will you.
Speaker 2: He is not saying that the entire earth covered with water.
Speaker 2: He's saying that most of it is covered with water.
Speaker 2: Most is not all and mostly covered in water for
Speaker 2: a few million years. Is not totally covered in water
Speaker 2: for one year. Anyway, I'm done with this guy. He
Speaker 2: rambles on for a bit more, but honestly he bores me.
Speaker 2: Today's common of the day comes just from Andrew Bolesworth
Speaker 2: nine two eight eight, who says, if the next time
Speaker 2: I click on you and you're still wearing those glasses,
Speaker 2: I will unsubscribe. Bye, Felicia, thanks for watching. Don't forget
Speaker 2: to go to search shark dot com slash rhino for
Speaker 2: four extra months for free. I'll be back next Friday
Speaker 2: with more, but if you need to get your ride
Speaker 2: of fix in before then. My live stream with service
Speaker 2: every Wednesday eight thirty Eastern on my other channel, The
Speaker 2: Watering Hole, and I periodically publish shorts on the channel
Speaker 2: Vice Rhino Shorts. Thanks to Piper for being my editor,
Speaker 2: and special thanks is always to my patrons, Elizabeth, Chris,
Speaker 2: the Jason. There's an exclamation mark at the end of
Speaker 2: his name, so I had to yell it and all
Speaker 2: the rest who are the mechanical wound that incubates the
Speaker 2: first woman That is my channel. If you'd like God
Speaker 2: to implant the first Man's egg into you, you can
Speaker 2: join us on Patreon for as little as a dollar
Speaker 2: per week, over at treund dot com, slash vice, Rhano,
Speaker 2: or by supporting the channel and one of the other
Speaker 2: methods that can be found at links to a viceround
Speaker 2: dot com, which is where you'll also find links some
Speaker 2: other projects. If for whatever reason you want to send
Speaker 2: me stuff my po box addresses in the description see
Speaker 2: and next time weird. That weird that an omnipotent god
Speaker 2: weird that had weird that an omnipotent god weird that
Speaker 2: an omnipotent god weird that an omnipotent god weird, that
Speaker 2: n omnipotent god weird that an omnipotent god weird that
Speaker 2: an omnipotent god weird that an Omnippian giant ah weird
Speaker 2: that an all powerful god got lazy. Oh I got lazy,
Speaker 2: but I'm not all powerful. Dairy helped me. Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: now it started again.