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: Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today
Speaker 2: we're looking at a video from the Reasons for Hope channel.
Speaker 2: These are the guys who make overproduce fast paced debunking
Speaker 2: videos that seem to be designed to his few nonsense
Speaker 2: at you so fast that you don't have time to
Speaker 2: stop and think about what they're saying. And as they
Speaker 2: have started using AI tools in their videos, there has
Speaker 2: been a corresponding ramping up of the aspects that I
Speaker 2: call over produced. So this one is going to be painful,
Speaker 2: but probably not as painful as Gramp's worrying about whether
Speaker 2: or not having consensual sex one time gave him the aids.
Speaker 2: So yay, let's go.
Speaker 3: Hey yo, everybody, what's up, good, good good. Let's jump
Speaker 3: into the nonsense asap, because I hear this a lot,
Speaker 3: and I got to take it down d style.
Speaker 2: I don't think I've ever seen a video opening that
Speaker 2: had bigger how do you do, fellow kids energy than that.
Speaker 3: Here's the shoddy syllogism shot senselessly by silly saboteurs of soundness.
Speaker 3: The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, therefore they didn't live with humans.
Speaker 3: Therefore the Bible is wrong about everything. Two flawed premises,
Speaker 3: one dumb conclusion.
Speaker 2: I agree those are flawed premisses and a dumb conclusion.
Speaker 2: If anyone makes that argument, you would be correct in
Speaker 2: dismissing it offhand. There's lots wrong with that argument. Now,
Speaker 2: I would agree that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, even
Speaker 2: if we include the passages that. I'm sure he's going
Speaker 2: to claim our references to dinosaurs in a moment, So
Speaker 2: I am good with the first premise. But therefore they
Speaker 2: didn't live with humans, My dude, Whether or not the
Speaker 2: Bible mentions dinosaurs is a completely separate question from whether
Speaker 2: or not dinosaurs live with humans. This would be like
Speaker 2: saying there are no dinosaurs in Hamlet, therefore dinosaurs didn't
Speaker 2: live with humans. Thing is, there are plenty of organisms
Speaker 2: that humans live with that are not mentioned in I
Speaker 2: would wager most literary works. There are plenty of organisms
Speaker 2: that when extinct before humans came on the scene, that
Speaker 2: are also not mentioned in most literary works. And do
Speaker 2: you know what else, there are plenty of literary works
Speaker 2: that mention mythical creatures that never existed, or that place
Speaker 2: humans alongside creatures that definitely did not coexist with them.
Speaker 2: Because fiction is a thing that exists, no one who
Speaker 2: is aware that the non avian dinosaurs did not coexist
Speaker 2: with humans would ever give They're not mentioned in the
Speaker 2: Bible as the reason for that, and the Bible being
Speaker 2: silent on one specific category of organisms does not impact
Speaker 2: the Bible's reliability when it comes to anything. And while
Speaker 2: I have certainly seen atheists get all hyperbolic and say
Speaker 2: that the Bible is wrong about everything, I would be surprised, indeed,
Speaker 2: if their justification for that stance was simply its lack
Speaker 2: of reference to dinosaurs. But well, I would definitely argue
Speaker 2: that the Bible gets a lot wrong, there are at
Speaker 2: least a few things that it does get right right.
Speaker 2: Egypt exists, for instance. Ponsco's pilot was the governor of
Speaker 2: GDA for a time in the first century CE. For another. Hell,
Speaker 2: I'd even say that it got some of the moral
Speaker 2: stuff right, like when it says to be kind to immigrants.
Speaker 2: There's actually more versus commanding kindness to immigrants than there
Speaker 2: are condemning homosexuality. And yet somehow Christians today seem hell
Speaker 2: bent on oppressing the immigrants and hating LGBTQ people. But anyway, yeah,
Speaker 2: the Bible gets some things right, but it also gets
Speaker 2: a lot of things wrong. So while I would never
Speaker 2: say that it's wrong about everything, neither would I agree
Speaker 2: that it is right about everything. Turns out this isn't
Speaker 2: a black and white issue.
Speaker 3: Let's tear it up. Primous one, the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. Well,
Speaker 3: first of all, it is true that the word dinosaur
Speaker 3: is not in the Bible. Well there you go, you
Speaker 3: cry case closed, Jack.
Speaker 2: Oh, please don't tell me. He is going to go
Speaker 2: for that thing where the word dinosaur wasn't coined until
Speaker 2: the eighteen hundred. So obviously we wouldn't expect to see
Speaker 2: it in a book that was written thousands of years ago.
Speaker 2: Because there is a huge glaring problem with that that
Speaker 2: I've never seen a creationist address what is that problem? Well,
Speaker 2: do you know what other words didn't exist when the
Speaker 2: Bible was written? Every single goddamn word in the English language.
Speaker 2: And yet somehow, through the magic of translation, we managed
Speaker 2: to figure out which modern English words are the equivalent
Speaker 2: of the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramic ones of the Bible,
Speaker 2: and then use those ones instead of the originals. I
Speaker 2: think I just described the translation process. This means that
Speaker 2: if there were references to dinosaurs in the ancient languages,
Speaker 2: than any translation later than the eighteen forties would have
Speaker 2: been able to use the word dinosaur, because that would
Speaker 2: be the better translation than whatever words were being used
Speaker 2: up until that point.
Speaker 3: Easy, there, sir, and that's not my name. Anyway, we
Speaker 3: shouldn't expect to see that word in a non English
Speaker 3: Bible because dinosaur is an English word.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, your argument is even stupider than I thought.
Speaker 2: Are you really telling me that a main part of
Speaker 2: that objection is centered around the fact that an English
Speaker 2: word is not found in non English Bibles? Because nobody
Speaker 2: makes that argument. Your straw man is one of the
Speaker 2: the flimsiest I've ever seen. Seriously, I have seen many
Speaker 2: bad arguments on the atheist side of things, It would
Speaker 2: have been super easy for you to find one that
Speaker 2: someone is actually making and tear that one apart. I
Speaker 2: still would have called you out for not responding to
Speaker 2: good arguments, but at least then you would have been
Speaker 2: responding to real arguments. If I were to ever make
Speaker 2: a video responding to the idea that the devil put
Speaker 2: dinosaur fossils in the ground to trick us, then that
Speaker 2: is what I would be doing at that point, responding
Speaker 2: to a bad argument, and it would be a sad
Speaker 2: day for me. But somehow y'all managed to think even
Speaker 2: lower than that.
Speaker 3: Secondly, the English word wasn't invented until around eighteen forty one,
Speaker 3: so we should expect to see the word dinosaur and
Speaker 3: any English translation before that date either.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's where I was expecting this to go. This
Speaker 2: is the more robust response, and it is foiled by
Speaker 2: the fact that most translations of the Bible that are
Speaker 2: in use today were produced later than eighteen forty one.
Speaker 2: So if there were an ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic
Speaker 2: word that would be best translated as dinosaur, it is
Speaker 2: not unreasonable to expect translators to translate it that way, the.
Speaker 3: Popular King James version was produced around sixteen eleven, some
Speaker 3: two hundred years before the word dinosaur existed, So we
Speaker 3: certainly can't expect a word to appear in a Bible
Speaker 3: before the word exists, right.
Speaker 2: Right, Which is why you'll notice that in my responses
Speaker 2: here I have been focusing on the fact that most
Speaker 2: translation of the Bible happened after eighteen forty one. But
Speaker 2: do you know it is in the King James translation unicorns.
Speaker 2: The word unicorn occurs nine times in the King James,
Speaker 2: but in the more modern translations like NIV and ESV,
Speaker 2: those verses render the same word as wild ox. Now
Speaker 2: are you going to use the King James translation to
Speaker 2: argue for the existence of unicorns because it mentions them?
Speaker 2: Or is this maybe an instance of where an old
Speaker 2: translation wasn't entirely accurate and so was corrected in later translations.
Speaker 2: So if this could happen for the wild ox, why
Speaker 2: could it not happen for dinosaurs? I mean, the obvious
Speaker 2: and correct answer here is that when the Bible says
Speaker 2: God is as strong as a unicorn, he's comparing himself
Speaker 2: to gay unicorn Gary, because no being has greater strength
Speaker 2: than gary.
Speaker 3: Right, so right, the word dinosaur per se isn't in
Speaker 3: the Bible, But that doesn't mean there aren't words or
Speaker 3: versus in the Bible that describe dinosaurs.
Speaker 2: The problem is those descriptions often come with words that
Speaker 2: are the name of the creature they are describing. So
Speaker 2: if they were actually agreed by the linguist and scholars
Speaker 2: who translate the Bible to be a description of the
Speaker 2: concept of a dinosaur in general or a specific dinosaur
Speaker 2: in particular, then the linguists and scholars would use the
Speaker 2: appropriate word there, but the words used to describe them
Speaker 2: in the Bible still to this day go untranslated. Behemoth
Speaker 2: comes from the Hebrew word Bihemah, and Leviathan comes from
Speaker 2: the Hebrew Livia ten. If they were meant to be
Speaker 2: specific animals that actually existed, rather than mythological ones akin
Speaker 2: to centaurs and manticors, then translators would be able to
Speaker 2: use the names of those specific animals. Now, admittedly, translation
Speaker 2: can often be a difficult process, so there is sometimes
Speaker 2: disagreement about which specific animal is being discussed. For instance,
Speaker 2: there are a couple of translations for which the unicorn
Speaker 2: of the King James is a rhinoceros. But the fact
Speaker 2: that no has ever made a serious effort at translating
Speaker 2: behemoth as dinosaur or sauropod kind of speaks of how
Speaker 2: little evidence there is for such an interpretation.
Speaker 3: In fact, I shall bring three to thine attention. Word.
Speaker 3: Oh no, the Hebrew word tanin he he translated dragon, jackal, serpent, whale,
Speaker 3: or even more broadly, as a marine or land monster,
Speaker 3: depending on the context, and it appears twenty eight times
Speaker 3: in the King James Bible in various forms.
Speaker 2: Notice that none of those words that it can be
Speaker 2: translated as is the word dinosaur.
Speaker 3: Weird word shitayam, which means two in Hebrew, is the
Speaker 3: word that hemoth.
Speaker 2: You know, they really should decide between trying to be
Speaker 2: clever and trying to go so fast you don't have
Speaker 2: time to think. I was very confused for a moment
Speaker 2: about their use of the Hebrew word for the number two.
Speaker 2: Is there a context in which it could be considered
Speaker 2: a dinosaur or a monster of some kind? No, of
Speaker 2: course not. They were just trying to be clever. But
Speaker 2: they were going so fast that you were primed to
Speaker 2: expect the next Hebrew word to be you know, the
Speaker 2: next Hebrew word they wanted to discuss, rather than just
Speaker 2: the number two.
Speaker 3: Which in English is the word behemoth, literally meaning great beast,
Speaker 3: appearing only once in the Bible in Job forty.
Speaker 2: And again, notice how neither behemoth or great beast is
Speaker 2: the word dinosaur.
Speaker 3: He described as being an herbivore with a tail like
Speaker 3: a cedar tree.
Speaker 2: He just flies past this part, because of course he does.
Speaker 2: But I do feel the need to point out any
Speaker 2: time we're dealing with this verse that it does not
Speaker 2: describe him as having a tail like a cedar tree.
Speaker 2: It describes him as having a tail that he moves
Speaker 2: or makes stiff, like a cedar tree. And given that
Speaker 2: the second half of that verse is talking about the
Speaker 2: sinews of his stones, it makes it quite clear that
Speaker 2: cedar tree here is a euphemism for he's got massive
Speaker 2: balls and a that gets as stiff as a tree.
Speaker 3: Bones like iron.
Speaker 2: He's got bones like iron, except one of the reasons
Speaker 2: soropods could get as big as they did was because
Speaker 2: their bones were less dense than those of typical land animals.
Speaker 2: So this is not about soropods. Now, I'd actually be
Speaker 2: willing to be charitable at this point if he quoted
Speaker 2: it correctly, because, as it happens, the the verse about
Speaker 2: its bones is actually that his bones are tubes of
Speaker 2: bronze and his limbs are bars of iron. If you
Speaker 2: left the tubes of bronze bit in, I would be
Speaker 2: happy to concede that. Should Behemoth actually be a sauropod,
Speaker 2: that could be a metaphor for having hollow bones. And
Speaker 2: while the bones aren't hollow in the tube sense, they
Speaker 2: are frequently said to be hollow when speaking colloquially. But
Speaker 2: since you just said it's bones are like iron, I
Speaker 2: get to put a mark in the definitely not a
Speaker 2: sauropod column.
Speaker 3: Undaunted by rushing water and lying down under shady trees.
Speaker 2: Research has shown that sauropods, due to the aforementioned low
Speaker 2: bone density, would actually have been quite buoyant and as
Speaker 2: a result, would have been incredibly unstable in water, making
Speaker 2: the verses about him being totally chill in turbulent water
Speaker 2: rather questionable. For the shady trees, it is specifically talking
Speaker 2: about trees in a marshy area. Most translations render them
Speaker 2: lotus trees, but this is another one of those We're
Speaker 2: not entirely sure which species they meant words, but it
Speaker 2: does tend to paint a picture of hanging about in
Speaker 2: the reeds of a marsh by, you know, using those words,
Speaker 2: and that doesn't really match up with what we know
Speaker 2: of behavior. But there's another problem here. We're at the
Speaker 2: end of their description. Every creationist I have ever seen
Speaker 2: talk about this passage is convinced that it is a
Speaker 2: sauropod dinosaur. But did you notice anything missing from the description.
Speaker 2: What is the literal first thing you think of when
Speaker 2: you think of a sauropod For most of you, I'd
Speaker 2: be willing to wager it's the incredibly long necks that
Speaker 2: they had. It is such a prominent feature that they
Speaker 2: are frequently just called long neck dinosaurs. Are you telling
Speaker 2: me that the author of job spent all that time
Speaker 2: talking about it's cockin balls, its bone density, and preferred
Speaker 2: tree to nap under, but it never occurred to him
Speaker 2: to even mention that it's got a freakishly long neck.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I suppose this is an argument from silence, but I
Speaker 2: feel like it's a pretty freaking valid one given what
Speaker 2: we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: The finally word TWA is this Hebrew word olivio, which
Speaker 3: in English is Leviatha appearing as such five times in
Speaker 3: the Bible.
Speaker 2: Who I'm just gonna head the pedants off at the
Speaker 2: pass here, I am aware that there were no fully
Speaker 2: aquatic dinosaurs piece, and that he is probably about to
Speaker 2: erroneously refer to something like a mososaur or an ichtheosaur
Speaker 2: using the word dinosaur, and I am not going to
Speaker 2: correct it.
Speaker 3: Aside from here, it's basically as a Reith's animal megas, serpent, crocodile,
Speaker 3: or some sort of large sea or inthebius creature.
Speaker 2: Fun fact about Leviathan, it is pretty explicitly the Hebrew
Speaker 2: version of the ugri atic sea monster Low ten that
Speaker 2: was defeated by the Canaanite storm god in the Baal cycle.
Speaker 2: What's more, in ancient Near Eastern cultures, it was fairly
Speaker 2: common for them to borrow stories from each other and
Speaker 2: swap their god's names in where appropriate. Often this would
Speaker 2: take the form of their god fighting a watery deity
Speaker 2: for supremacy. In a creation myth, the creation of the
Speaker 2: world comes about from the supreme God exerting his power
Speaker 2: over the watery god, who takes the form of a
Speaker 2: sea monster, and we see this motif continued in the
Speaker 2: biblical mentions of Leviathan. Psalm seventy four, for instance, talks
Speaker 2: about God defeating Leviathan while clearly alluding to the Hebrew
Speaker 2: creation myth when talking about establishing the heavenly lights, making
Speaker 2: summer and winter, and fixing the boundaries of the earth.
Speaker 2: We even see further development of this motif in Genesis
Speaker 2: one two the earth is within out form and void,
Speaker 2: with only water. Other potential translations here are the formless
Speaker 2: waste or chaos, and the word translated as without form,
Speaker 2: formless waste or chaos is one that has a potential
Speaker 2: etymological connection with Tiamot, the Mesopotamian sea goddess who gave
Speaker 2: birth to the other Mesopotamian deities, meaning that the opening
Speaker 2: verses of the Bible are a continuation of the Canonite
Speaker 2: practice of having your god defeating another culture's god in
Speaker 2: a battle where the defeated God is represented by the sea.
Speaker 2: I'll eve a link to a conversation I had with
Speaker 2: a Syriologist, doctor Joshua Bowen, that goes over this connection
Speaker 2: in a bit more detail if you're interested. But given
Speaker 2: this cultural and historical context, it seems extremely unlikely to
Speaker 2: me that Leviathan is actually supposed to represent a real
Speaker 2: animal of some kind. It's just a representation of the
Speaker 2: primary god of a different religion, with the Hebrew God
Speaker 2: asserting dominance over it.
Speaker 3: Job forty one described it as a large sea creature,
Speaker 3: perhaps an amphibious one with scales. It shoots fire from
Speaker 3: the class of smoke from its nostrils, and is really
Speaker 3: really tough to capture or overcome.
Speaker 2: I feel like it breathes is a pretty good indicator
Speaker 2: that it is entirely mythical, as there has never been
Speaker 2: any animal known to do that. If you want me
Speaker 2: to take the idea that it was a real creature seriously,
Speaker 2: best avoid the obviously untrue bits now.
Speaker 3: Even if some of the words in some of the
Speaker 3: passages are meant to be poetic, hyperbolic, or even used
Speaker 3: to describe mythical monsters that convey God's sovereign power, they
Speaker 3: no doubt sound a lot like what I and most
Speaker 3: people would call a dinosaur.
Speaker 2: Breathes fire and hides in marshy reeds aren't exactly the
Speaker 2: first things I think of when you say dinosaur. Even
Speaker 2: with your carefully cherry picked bits of the descriptions it
Speaker 2: doesn't shout dinosaur to me at all. If they had
Speaker 2: to be real creatures, Bohemus sounds like a hippo, and
Speaker 2: Leviathan sounds like a crocodile.
Speaker 3: Anyway, point is, there are words, in fact, verses and
Speaker 3: chapters in the Bible that describe what certainly could be dinosaurs,
Speaker 3: even if they don't use that exact word.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, for your case here, those descriptions are much better
Speaker 2: suited to non dinosaur animals that currently exist alongside humans.
Speaker 3: And now it's time to pummel primise too before they
Speaker 3: didn't live with humans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, the conclusion they didn't live with us is
Speaker 2: not based on the fact that they weren't mentioned in
Speaker 2: the Bible. It's based on the fact that no hint
Speaker 2: of such creatures existing later than about sixty five million
Speaker 2: years ago has ever been found.
Speaker 3: Well, even if dinosaurs aren't mentioned, it doesn't follow that
Speaker 3: they didn't exist or didn't live among humans.
Speaker 2: Wait, are you seriously lumping dinosaurs didn't live with humans
Speaker 2: in with dinosaurs didn't even exist. One of those is
Speaker 2: a lot more ridiculous than the other, but I do
Speaker 2: appreciate you using blatantly dishonest tactics to try and make
Speaker 2: your position look reasonable by comparison, because if you have
Speaker 2: to do that in order to look like you're winning,
Speaker 2: it is a tacit admission that you not only lost,
Speaker 2: you know that you lost and are trying to hide it.
Speaker 2: If you had won, you'd be able to steal man
Speaker 2: the we didn't live with dinosaurs position and still come
Speaker 2: out on top. So the fact that you had to
Speaker 2: weaken the position as drastically as you did says more
Speaker 2: than I ever could.
Speaker 3: Lack of mention doesn't equal lack of existence or presence.
Speaker 2: Correct, but lack of mention LUs all of the evidence
Speaker 2: that they lived millions of years ago, and when extinct
Speaker 2: shortly after the chicksaloub impact does equate to lack of presence.
Speaker 2: Combine that with the fact that, even by your own admission,
Speaker 2: the creatures that you claim were dinosaurs in the Bible
Speaker 2: could have just been mythological beats or hyperbolic language. And
Speaker 2: we have zero reasonablieve that dinosaurs ever co existed with humans,
Speaker 2: and zero reasonab believe that any of the authors of
Speaker 2: the Bible were even aware of dinosaurs.
Speaker 3: There's all kinds of things that books don't mention that
Speaker 3: exist doesn't mean the book is somehow flawed. True.
Speaker 2: But when creationists claim that The Flintstones is a documentary
Speaker 2: and the only evidence they have supporting their claim is
Speaker 2: the presence of dinosaurs in the Bible, then their absence
Speaker 2: can be used to dismiss that claim.
Speaker 3: Look, scripture is clear. Genesis won twenty through twenty six
Speaker 3: declares that sea and land creatures, which would have included dinosaurs,
Speaker 3: were created on days five and six, respectively.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the Bible also says that the earth is
Speaker 2: flat and the stars can fall out of the sky.
Speaker 2: So forgive me for not taking it seriously.
Speaker 3: And this means they were alive at the same time
Speaker 3: since man was created on day six. Whoa, whoa, Well
Speaker 3: they double up the numb a dow them back to reality.
Speaker 3: Don't you watch a Discovery channel? Don't you know that
Speaker 3: all the dinosaurs went extinct millions and millions of years ago?
Speaker 2: Correct? They did ergo a literal interpretation of the Genesis
Speaker 2: creation myth is impossible?
Speaker 3: No, they didn't. Not according to God's word.
Speaker 2: Well, if God's word says the thing that is wrong,
Speaker 2: then God's word is wrong, and thus either it isn't
Speaker 2: God's word or else the god responsible for it doesn't
Speaker 2: care about accuracy.
Speaker 3: Not according to some of the scientific data, namely the
Speaker 3: discovery of soft tissue including red blood cells in dinosaur finds.
Speaker 2: They didn't find actual red blood cells. They found microscopic
Speaker 2: structures that were morphologically similar to red blood cells in
Speaker 2: the most protected portions of the fossils. After all the
Speaker 2: non soft bits were dissolved in an acid bath. This
Speaker 2: is important to know because creationists often present this discovery
Speaker 2: as though you could find a fossil out in the wild,
Speaker 2: crack it in half, and it would still be sticky
Speaker 2: with blood. In reality, the amount of soft tissue that
Speaker 2: survived is minuscule, and the reason they harp on about
Speaker 2: soft tissue is to support the idea that all fossils
Speaker 2: performed a nose flood just over four thousand years ago.
Speaker 2: If that were the case, then we would expect to
Speaker 2: find large quantities of soft tissues in just about any fossil.
Speaker 2: But we don't, so they have to misrepresent what we
Speaker 2: do find in order to make people think that we do.
Speaker 3: It couldn't possibly be there if they were sixty five
Speaker 3: million years old.
Speaker 2: I've already linked to the state of clearly video that
Speaker 2: goes over the story of the initial soft tissue find
Speaker 2: in a little more detail, So go give that a
Speaker 2: watch if you're interested. But to paraphrase it a bit here,
Speaker 2: there were three options regarding the soft tissue. Option one
Speaker 2: is what creationists go for, the fossil was actually young.
Speaker 2: Option two is contamination. Option three is that there was
Speaker 2: some mechanism at work that at the time of the
Speaker 2: discovery was unknown. Given the mountains of evidence supporting the
Speaker 2: age of the fossil, Option one was pretty much immediately
Speaker 2: off the table. Option two had been ruled out by
Speaker 2: subsequent fines and experiments, so we're left with option three,
Speaker 2: And in subsequent research we've come to understand that these
Speaker 2: tissues could have been preserved through iron mediated cross linking.
Speaker 2: There is a lot more to it than this, obviously,
Speaker 2: but yeah, we figured out a previously undiscovered mechanism of preservation.
Speaker 2: Learning is fun no no no, no no no.
Speaker 3: Bro dinosaurs are a recent creation, most buried in the
Speaker 3: Genesis Flood, with some remaining survivors on the art going
Speaker 3: extinct for various reasons.
Speaker 2: The flinstones is a documentary because my book says so, which.
Speaker 3: Leads me to state firmly then that the conclusion therefore
Speaker 3: the Bible is wrong about everything is wrong, way wrong.
Speaker 3: It just doesn't follow.
Speaker 2: Congratulations. The flimsy ass straw man argument that you constructed
Speaker 2: fell over. Well done. But when I break down what
Speaker 2: you've done in this video, you've essentially said, the Bible
Speaker 2: says X, therefore X can't be wrong. Therefore the Bible
Speaker 2: isn't wrong. Can an argument get any more circular?
Speaker 3: Even if the Bible not mentioning dinosaurs was somehow problematic,
Speaker 3: it would not follow that everything else in the Bible
Speaker 3: is false and nothing in it can be trusted. I mean,
Speaker 3: my history books don't mention the iPad or the Toyota prius,
Speaker 3: the latter for good reason.
Speaker 2: Of course, I don't understand was that supposed to be
Speaker 2: a jab at the prius. I haven't heard a priuses
Speaker 2: are stupid since like two thousand and nine or something.
Speaker 2: But yeah, history books don't mention things that aren't relevant
Speaker 2: to their specific topic. Though I would imagine that there
Speaker 2: are actually plenty of history books that do mention iPads
Speaker 2: and priuses, as both were pretty big innovations at their debuts,
Speaker 2: and their debuts were long enough ago to be included
Speaker 2: in history books. At this point, my back hurts all
Speaker 2: of a sudden. Anyway, that's basically it. He just summarizes
Speaker 2: at this point. So yeah, big old straw man argument
Speaker 2: that he didn't even really manage to beat. Today's comment
Speaker 2: to the day comes to us from American Mutt zach K,
Speaker 2: who says, why do atheists have such a problem understanding
Speaker 2: that humans are evil? Not really hard to figure out.
Speaker 2: Say it to yourself, atheists, humans are evil, and then
Speaker 2: you'll understand the problem of evil is humans. First, I disagree,
Speaker 2: some humans are certainly evil, but in my experience the
Speaker 2: majority are generally good people who don't want others to suffer.
Speaker 2: But also, that doesn't actually address the problem of evil,
Speaker 2: because there is plenty of suffering in the world that
Speaker 2: is not the result of humans being evil. When a
Speaker 2: baby gets cancer, is that the result of humans being evil?
Speaker 2: If your answer is yes, then I would suggest that
Speaker 2: you need to reevaluate your life. Thanks for watching. I'll
Speaker 2: be back next Friday with more, but if you need
Speaker 2: to get your ride effets in before then, I lace
Speaker 2: room with service every Wednesday eight thirty Eastern on my
Speaker 2: other channel, A watering Hole, and periodically published shorts on
Speaker 2: the channel Vice Rano Shorts. Thanks to Piper for being
Speaker 2: my editor, and specially thanks as always to my patrons,
Speaker 2: who are the cocaine that clearly fuels the creationist propaganda
Speaker 2: video that is my channel. If you'd like me to
Speaker 2: get high, you can join us on Patreon for as
Speaker 2: little as a dollar per week over at patreon dot
Speaker 2: com slash vice Rano, or by supporting the channel one
Speaker 2: of the other methods. You can found at link stadviceround
Speaker 2: dot com, which is also where you find links to
Speaker 2: my other projects. If for whatever reason you want to
Speaker 2: send me stuff, my po box addresses in the description
Speaker 2: see next Time. I don't know if those are actually
Speaker 2: coming through, but like I'm hearing them in my head
Speaker 2: as I'm saying these words, I'm getting laid little, and
Speaker 2: I don't like it because I'm not Calvin Smith of
Speaker 2: Answers in Genesis.
Speaker 3: You Calvin