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: I'm looking at an answers in Genesis, Canada video called
Speaker 2: the Worst Lies about the World Your school taught you,
Speaker 2: though I have learned by now not to trust their
Speaker 2: titles to be accurate representations of the contents of the videos,
Speaker 2: because apparently this organization that has an article explaining that
Speaker 2: they would never lie to a Nazi to save a
Speaker 2: Jew doesn't have a problem with lying if it means
Speaker 2: more clicks on their videos, and more clicks equals more money.
Speaker 2: Lying to save a life, Nope, lying for money. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Side note. As atrocious as that article is, it actually
Speaker 2: gets worse At one point, when setting up their scenario,
Speaker 2: they point out how using a Jew for this example
Speaker 2: instead of one of the many other groups of people
Speaker 2: that the Nazis persecuted is not just because the Jewish
Speaker 2: people were the most well known targets of the Nazis,
Speaker 2: and so this framing is one that will require the
Speaker 2: least explanation, but rather it is a clever ruse meant
Speaker 2: to tug on your heartstrings because AIG apparently agrees with
Speaker 2: the Nazi stance on the LGBTQ community and disability, So
Speaker 2: using a trends or disabled person as the example wouldn't
Speaker 2: be hard for them at all. Of course they'd turn
Speaker 2: them in. So yeah, just in case you needed another
Speaker 2: reason to dislike answers in Genesis, let's see what this
Speaker 2: video is about.
Speaker 3: Growing up in a non Christian environment, I had a
Speaker 3: big picture understanding of the world around me that was
Speaker 3: shaped by the thoughts and ideas derived from the secular
Speaker 3: influences that I was immersed in, whether at the state
Speaker 3: run schools I attended or through the TV movies and
Speaker 3: magazines I've read constantly on the receiving end of a
Speaker 3: consistent and cohesive narrative. That narrative was the story of evolution.
Speaker 2: Contrary to what people like Calvin will tell you, secular
Speaker 2: does not actually mean against religion. Secular is simply a
Speaker 2: word to describe something that isn't inherently religious. So when
Speaker 2: you go grocery shopping, for instance, that is a secular activity,
Speaker 2: even if you are a deeply religious person. In fact,
Speaker 2: the majority of life is secular, regardless of your religious beliefs.
Speaker 2: I know they would object to this fact, like the
Speaker 2: guy from a couple weeks ago who said that true
Speaker 2: Christians view everything through a lens of scripture. He would
Speaker 2: probably say that for those Christians nothing is secular. But really,
Speaker 2: is there anyone who is standing in the store praying
Speaker 2: over whether God wants them to buy Sharman or Scott
Speaker 2: Brand toilet paper and then doing the same for literally
Speaker 2: every product that they buy. That sounds exhausting, and I
Speaker 2: very much doubt that even the most indoctrinated, brainwashed cult
Speaker 2: member is at that level. So yes, many of our
Speaker 2: thoughts and ideas are shaped by secular influences, not because
Speaker 2: we filthy secularists are scheming to undermine your religion, but
Speaker 2: simply because they have nothing to do with religion, and
Speaker 2: like it or not, Biology is one of those things
Speaker 2: God is irrelevant to the question of evolution. Evolution is
Speaker 2: just a thing that happens regardless of your beliefs about.
Speaker 3: It, declared as a supposedly reasoned, thoroughly rational, and above
Speaker 3: all else scientific way of explaining all existence.
Speaker 2: Well, unless you're about to go into a Kent Hoven
Speaker 2: style six kinds of evolution thing in science. Evolution specifically
Speaker 2: refers to the theory of evolution in biology, which explains
Speaker 2: how the diversity of life has increased as time goes on.
Speaker 2: It doesn't even explain the origin of life, so to
Speaker 2: say that it's supposed to explain all of existence is
Speaker 2: just laughable. Honestly, this kind of seems like a cult
Speaker 2: thought stopping technique. If everything you don't like is evolution,
Speaker 2: then you don't need to explain why all of these
Speaker 2: independent scientific fields are all wrong. You can just call
Speaker 2: them all evolution and then bring up a few of
Speaker 2: what you see as the problems with one of the
Speaker 2: fields and use that to dismiss them all.
Speaker 3: How did the universe come about? Simple cosmological evolution, typically
Speaker 3: the Big Bang? How is the Earth formed? Wow? Easy?
Speaker 3: Now is geological evolution over billions of years of slow processes?
Speaker 3: Where did life come from? Well, that wasn't a problem.
Speaker 3: Chemical evolution, non living chemicals just formed the first life form,
Speaker 3: and what caused all the biodiversity we see rudimentary biological
Speaker 3: evolution through natural selection and genetic mutation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Now call one aspect of evolution into question,
Speaker 2: and your followers get to dismiss all of these very
Speaker 2: different and extremely well developed fields of science in one
Speaker 2: fell swoop, because it's all evolution, you see. And if
Speaker 2: we evolve from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? And
Speaker 2: while AIG doesn't explicitly promote that line of questioning as
Speaker 2: a thing that they think creations should use against evolution,
Speaker 2: the way that they talk about it seems designed to
Speaker 2: still leave their audience with that misunderstanding. But maybe don't
Speaker 2: voice that misunderstanding out loud. I'll go ahead and leave
Speaker 2: a link to a video where I encounter and respond
Speaker 2: to that particular tactic in a bit more detail.
Speaker 3: And how did we finally arrive quite basic actually anthropological
Speaker 3: evolution from lower ape like creatures.
Speaker 2: There's actually zero distinction between the evolution that led to
Speaker 2: the diversity of life and the evolution that led to humans.
Speaker 2: We are part of the diversity of life. It's the
Speaker 2: same thing. And Calvin's distinction here seems meant to encourage
Speaker 2: the misunderstanding that there's something special about humans that sets
Speaker 2: us apart from the animals. There's also no distinction between
Speaker 2: higher and lower forms of life. They're just different, adapted
Speaker 2: for different environments and different niches within those environments.
Speaker 3: In this explanation of everything was well packaged, always portrayed,
Speaker 3: and presented as a concise explanation of reality that was
Speaker 3: thoroughly researched to complete with charts, graphs, and dates and
Speaker 3: diagrams that provided it with the clarity and seemingly intellectual credibility.
Speaker 2: So science, the scientific ideas about all the stuff you
Speaker 2: brought up, came with facts and data to support them.
Speaker 2: That is what you just said when you strip away
Speaker 2: the creation of slant.
Speaker 3: And as a young person trying to figure it all out,
Speaker 3: I was naturally drawn to this way of thinking, as
Speaker 3: subjective reasoning based on emotion or personal preference seemed extremely
Speaker 3: arbitrary to me.
Speaker 2: Isn't that kind of the definition of arbitrary, Like no
Speaker 2: real reason, just your personal whims.
Speaker 3: Of course, what I failed to understand was that although
Speaker 3: many people like myself seemed convinced that the theory of
Speaker 3: evolution is based on an analysis of brute facts. There
Speaker 3: was actually a huge underlying philosophy that drove these materialistic
Speaker 3: conclusions long before the facts were examined, and long before
Speaker 3: I was ever born.
Speaker 2: For that matter, Even if that were true, it doesn't
Speaker 2: change the fact that evolution is a thing that happens.
Speaker 2: Best case scenario here is that you're setting up a
Speaker 2: genetic fallacy where you attack the origin of an idea
Speaker 2: in or to discredit that idea, rather than attacking the
Speaker 2: idea itself.
Speaker 3: The question of origins where did everything come from? Has
Speaker 3: only two possible answers.
Speaker 2: Either the Christian God did it? Or gay unicorn Gary
Speaker 2: did it.
Speaker 3: Either the universe arose by itself or it didn't.
Speaker 2: Oh that sure, it's one of those vapid profundities that
Speaker 2: don't actually say much of anything. You could make that
Speaker 2: statement about literally anything. Either my dick a rose by
Speaker 2: itself or it didn't.
Speaker 3: Checkmatee atheists, And if it did make itself, then some
Speaker 3: sort of cosmic evolution must have taken place to account
Speaker 3: for reality.
Speaker 2: The way you're using the word evolution is essentially as
Speaker 2: a shortcut for saying change over time. Here, So, yes,
Speaker 2: the universe has changed over time. I feel like that's
Speaker 2: one of those things that is true, whether creationism is
Speaker 2: true or.
Speaker 3: Not, and if it didn't, there must be a creator.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily having a cause that is something other than
Speaker 2: itself does not automatically mean that that cause was a
Speaker 2: being with intentions.
Speaker 3: No one has ever presented an intelligent third option.
Speaker 2: Wow, man. I know creationists ignore the majority of both
Speaker 2: cosmology and theoretical physics, but to dismiss those entire fields
Speaker 2: of science as not having produced anything intelligent is just
Speaker 2: epic levels of mediocre white man audacity.
Speaker 3: Now, although the popular version of evolution today is typically
Speaker 3: associated with Charles Darwin.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm gonna let him finish this point before I
Speaker 2: actually respond to it, but I do wonder why they
Speaker 2: used an AI video generator to make a slow scroll
Speaker 2: past a bunch of copies of Origin of Species rather
Speaker 2: than just, you know, buying a few copies to do
Speaker 2: the same thing. That has a much bigger budget than
Speaker 2: I do, and the exact book that the video generator
Speaker 2: is trying to replicate is like thirty bucks. I spent
Speaker 2: more than that getting Piper to make those silly title
Speaker 2: card things that I did for my video on the
Speaker 2: Book of Romans. Speaking of go give that one a watch.
Speaker 2: As it stands, I spent more money making it than
Speaker 2: I earned from it, because I'm more ethical than any
Speaker 2: large corporation. So I pay Piper something like ten times
Speaker 2: the minimum wage in their state. And that's only barely
Speaker 2: an exaggeration. Of course, they have to pay me for
Speaker 2: the privilege of time outside the editing cage, but that's
Speaker 2: beside the point. Anyway, what was he saying?
Speaker 3: No one has ever presented an intelligent third option. Now,
Speaker 3: although the popular version of evolution today is typically associated
Speaker 3: with Charles Darwin, the idea of evolution is not a
Speaker 3: modern concept.
Speaker 2: Yeah, turns out people have been noticing that stuff changes
Speaker 2: over time for thousands of years now. But do you
Speaker 2: know what else has changed over time our understanding of evolution.
Speaker 2: You might say that it has evolved, and Darwin played
Speaker 2: a pretty big role in that process. But yeah, he
Speaker 2: was working from a base of existing knowledge that had
Speaker 2: been built upon for centuries before he was born.
Speaker 3: These ultimate starting axioms have been the same throughout history.
Speaker 3: The ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Greeks, and Romans all had
Speaker 3: ideas of millions of years and or biological evolution and
Speaker 3: added them into their beliefs.
Speaker 2: Almost like the Earth being millions of years old and
Speaker 2: biological organisms changing over time are both such obvious concepts
Speaker 2: that pretty much every religion felt the need to deal
Speaker 2: with them. I know that's probably not the real explanation here. Honestly,
Speaker 2: the most likely scenarios that Calvin is misrepresenting the beliefs
Speaker 2: of these religions. I know that Hinduism is pretty explicit
Speaker 2: about the universe being millions of years old, but the
Speaker 2: way that evolution is interpreted to fit within Hinduism is
Speaker 2: found primarily in the ten avatars of Vishnu. When Vishnu
Speaker 2: visits the Earth, he will appear in one of his
Speaker 2: ten forms or avatars, and the first six avatars kind
Speaker 2: of look like an evolutionary progression if you squint real hard,
Speaker 2: ignore a bunch of missing steps, and pretend that the
Speaker 2: last few steps are remotely close to resembling evolution. Somehow
Speaker 2: it goes fish, turtle, bore, human line hybrid, a dwarf god,
Speaker 2: and then a Brahmin warrior. I don't know what part
Speaker 2: of our modern understanding of evolution deals with human line
Speaker 2: hybrids and gods with dwarf ism, but good on them
Speaker 2: for being inclusive, I guess. Also, if we're looking at
Speaker 2: this as an evolutionary chain leading to humans, it fails
Speaker 2: on the turtle. Turtles didn't evolve until the reptile and
Speaker 2: mammal lineages had already split from each other. For the
Speaker 2: Roman and Greeks, we have philosophers like an aximander, Is, Xenophanes, Empedocles,
Speaker 2: and Lucretius proposing ideas that once again kind of looks
Speaker 2: similar ish to our modern concept of evolution if you
Speaker 2: squint and don't think too hard. They basically all agree
Speaker 2: that living organisms were produced spontaneously by the Earth, but
Speaker 2: they disagree about some of the details. An Aximander thought
Speaker 2: that everything except for humans were created this while humans
Speaker 2: evolved directly from fish. His Studentsenophanes further developed this idea,
Speaker 2: making note of marine fossils in currently dry environments and
Speaker 2: using them as evidence that the Earth has been formed
Speaker 2: out of a primordial water scenario. Empedocles thought that the
Speaker 2: Earth had spontaneously given birth to disembodied organs, which eventually
Speaker 2: came together through the power of love. Okay, the word
Speaker 2: he used in the context in which he used it
Speaker 2: would probably be better translated as an attractive force, but
Speaker 2: I could not make that joke. But he had stumbled
Speaker 2: onto a sort of rudimentary idea of natural selection, because
Speaker 2: not all the creatures that were created when those organs
Speaker 2: came together were able to survive. But in his model,
Speaker 2: selection was entirely in the past. Extant organisms don't appreciably
Speaker 2: change to him. Lastly, we have Lucretius, whose idea was
Speaker 2: similar to Empedocles, but with the idea that the selection
Speaker 2: pressures that determine survival were either speed, cunning, strength, or
Speaker 2: their usefulness to humans. And similarly, this selection was in
Speaker 2: the past. New species don't evolve from existing ones. So
Speaker 2: given that Hinduism, ancient Roman, and ancient Greek philosophy didn't
Speaker 2: really have a concept of evolution in the way that
Speaker 2: Calvin needs them to for his argument to work, I'm
Speaker 2: going to go ahead and assume that he is similarly
Speaker 2: incorrect about the other religions or philosophies that I didn't look.
Speaker 3: Into without access to the facts commonly held up today
Speaker 3: by modern evolutionists as proof of evolution. The geologic column, DNA,
Speaker 3: natural selection, radiometric dating, hominid fossils, etc.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now, they did not have access to all of
Speaker 2: the facts that we have today, and thus their picture
Speaker 2: of evolution, inasmuch as you can call it a picture
Speaker 2: of evolution, is rudimentary and out of focus. Their work,
Speaker 2: plus the work of countless other philosophers and scientists throughout
Speaker 2: the centuries, is what makes our modern understanding of evolution possible.
Speaker 2: And hell, while we're here, given some of what apparently
Speaker 2: counts as rudimentary evolution involving plants and animals being created
Speaker 2: from the mud of the early Earth, Christianity could just
Speaker 2: as easily be included on his lispt. It's even got
Speaker 2: a closer approximation of evolutionary progression than Hinduism. When you
Speaker 2: look at the order of creation, sea creatures come before
Speaker 2: land animals, which are followed by humans. Sure, birds and
Speaker 2: plants are in the wrong spot, but this is at
Speaker 2: least talking about how these things actually came to exist,
Speaker 2: unlike the Hindu equivalent, which is just talking about forms
Speaker 2: of particular God takes on while he visits the Earth.
Speaker 2: So yeah, Christianity supports evolution.
Speaker 3: The fact is there have always been people who have
Speaker 3: doubted the existence of God and have followed that doubt
Speaker 3: to its logical conclusions by applying it to their interpretations
Speaker 3: of what they observed in nature.
Speaker 2: Are you really out here saying that the adherence to
Speaker 2: these ancient religions formed their ideas that you credited to
Speaker 2: their religions because they were actually a bunch of atheists?
Speaker 2: Does nobody review your scripts? I mean, I get it.
Speaker 2: I couldn't tell you how many times I've started a
Speaker 2: thought with firstly, but then got distracted during that thought
Speaker 2: so never got around it. Secondly, but I'm also a
Speaker 2: one man show over here. What about me? Excuse me?
Speaker 2: Did you pay for time out of the editing cage?
Speaker 2: I thought not anyway. Like I was saying, I'm a
Speaker 2: one man show over here, I don't have anywhere close
Speaker 2: to the resources that AIG has, So you'd think a
Speaker 2: second set of eyes to go over the script to
Speaker 2: make sure there aren't any glaring mistakes like this one
Speaker 2: would be a no brainer. Then again, if they actually
Speaker 2: wanted to remove the glaring mistakes from their scripts, there
Speaker 2: wouldn't really be much of a script left at the
Speaker 2: end of that process, would there. I guess that's the
Speaker 2: trade off when you make being abysmally wrong, a core
Speaker 2: tenet of your business model.
Speaker 3: As a poignant example, Charles Darwin's atheistic grandfather, Erasmus, formulated
Speaker 3: similar ideas and published them in a book called Zoonomia
Speaker 3: in seventeen ninety four, some sixty five years before Charles's
Speaker 3: Origin of Species.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he hit on some evolutionary ideas that were in
Speaker 2: the same vein as Lamarckian evolution, which is the idea
Speaker 2: that organisms could pass on characteristics they developed during their lifetime.
Speaker 2: Like if you worked out a lot and had lots
Speaker 2: of big muscles, then your baby would be a big
Speaker 2: muscley baby. It's Lamarckian evolution. But more to the point,
Speaker 2: Zoonomia was not a work of evolutionary biology. It was
Speaker 2: a wide ranging two volume work covering basically everything Erasmus
Speaker 2: knew about biology, and it only had a couple of
Speaker 2: paragraphs related to evolution. Now, there is little to no
Speaker 2: evidence that Erasmus Darwin's understanding of evolution had any direct
Speaker 2: impact on Charles Darwin's development of the theory. But if
Speaker 2: I set that aside and assume that this is the
Speaker 2: origin of the seeds of evolution that were first planted
Speaker 2: in Charles's mind. Then we're just back to where we started.
Speaker 2: Charles Darwin was not working in a vacuum. He did
Speaker 2: not invent the entire theory out of nothing. He was
Speaker 2: building on the discoveries of previous scientists, because that's how
Speaker 2: science works.
Speaker 3: Zunomia outlined a completely naturalistic explanation of the world, which
Speaker 3: included the ideas that the Earth was formed from a
Speaker 3: cosmic explosion, life began in the sea, became progressively more complex,
Speaker 3: and eventually became people, and that all happened over millions
Speaker 3: of years.
Speaker 2: Zoonomia is, as far as I can tell without actually
Speaker 2: reading the whole damn thing, entirely a work of biology.
Speaker 2: But Erasmus was a bit of a polymath. He was
Speaker 2: primarily a physician, but he was also a somewhat prolific poet,
Speaker 2: and in one of his poems he did paint a
Speaker 2: picture that could be interpreted as being similar to the
Speaker 2: idea of the Big Bang, though being in the form
Speaker 2: of poetry, it is incredibly unlikely that he was actually
Speaker 2: working out the astronomical details, but was rather doing poetry.
Speaker 2: But yeah, like I said, he was a bit of
Speaker 2: a polymath, dabbling in engineering and chemistry as well. He
Speaker 2: had a bunch of inventions under his belt, and even
Speaker 2: drew up a schematic of a rocket engine fueled by
Speaker 2: hydrogen and oxygen, a type of engine that wouldn't actually
Speaker 2: be invented for another century or so. So yeah, he
Speaker 2: had a few ideas that at least had the appearance
Speaker 2: of being ahead of his time, and even mentioned the
Speaker 2: fact that he was an abolitionist and advocate for women's education,
Speaker 2: though admittedly through a modern lens, his idea of educating
Speaker 2: women wasn't exactly the model of equality. But yeah, he
Speaker 2: was an interesting character to say the least.
Speaker 3: Again, notice that all of these assumptions were concluded without
Speaker 3: the common evidences that evolutionists point to today.
Speaker 2: I mean without all of them, sure, but many of
Speaker 2: them were there right from the start, from the fifth
Speaker 2: century BCE, we already had Xenophanes using fossil evidence to
Speaker 2: draw conclusions about the history of the Earth. Sure he
Speaker 2: was wrong about the details, but that's the thing. Remember
Speaker 2: how you said they came to these conclusions without all
Speaker 2: of our modern evidence. Well, all of our modern evidence
Speaker 2: is how we know that these scientists and philosophers of
Speaker 2: the past were on the right track, but had a
Speaker 2: bunch of the details wrong. As we learn more, the
Speaker 2: picture became clearer. But long ages has been pretty clear
Speaker 2: from pretty much about as long as humans have been
Speaker 2: doing science. How long those ages are has historically been
Speaker 2: a matter of much debate, and actually even the idea
Speaker 2: of long ages hasn't been as universally accepted as either
Speaker 2: of us have implied. So remember that Lucretius guy, the
Speaker 2: guy who had a rudimentary understanding of natural selection and
Speaker 2: extended it to artificial selection with the organism's usefulness to humans.
Speaker 2: He actually thought that the Earth was quite young, on
Speaker 2: the grounds that he was unaware of any historical accounts
Speaker 2: that were earlier than the Trojan War. Aristotle, on the
Speaker 2: other hand, thought that the Earth was eternal. So yeah,
Speaker 2: this story that you're telling of a monolithic idea of
Speaker 2: evolution and an ancient Earth that has been believed for
Speaker 2: longer than we've had the evidence for evolution and an
Speaker 2: ancient Earth is mostly just fiction.
Speaker 3: And note that my conclusion isn't simply the musing of
Speaker 3: a bias creationist.
Speaker 2: At this point, I wouldn't say it's even the simple
Speaker 2: musing of a bias creationist because honestly, I'm not even
Speaker 2: sure that you believe what you preach. I have caught
Speaker 2: the Aig Crew in enough blatant lies that it wouldn't
Speaker 2: surprise me at all if Calvin were engaged in pure
Speaker 2: grifting here at the released. I find it incredibly hard
Speaker 2: to believe that someone who lies as much and as
Speaker 2: easily as he does is in any way sincere about
Speaker 2: the beliefs that his lies are supposed to be bolstering.
Speaker 3: Secular professor of biology Douglas Futiema also laid out the
Speaker 3: scope of possibilities regarding the question of origins quite succinctly
Speaker 3: when he stated creation and evolution between them exhaust the
Speaker 3: possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either
Speaker 3: appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not.
Speaker 3: If they did not, they must have developed from pre
Speaker 3: existing species by some process of modification. If they did
Speaker 3: appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have
Speaker 3: been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process
Speaker 3: could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a
Speaker 3: redwood tree in one step.
Speaker 2: And then, to complete the quote, if species were created
Speaker 2: out of nothing in their present form, they will bear
Speaker 2: within them no evidence of a former history. If they
Speaker 2: are the result of historical development, any evidence of history
Speaker 2: is evidence of evolution. With my completion of the quote,
Speaker 2: we have now heard the entire opening paragraph to chapter
Speaker 2: eleven of his book Science on Trial, The Case for Evolution.
Speaker 2: This chapter, called the Case for Evolution, begins by setting
Speaker 2: up the dichotomy between creation and evolution, and then goes
Speaker 2: on to make the negative case for revolution in the
Speaker 2: form of explaining the problems with creationism, before proceeding on
Speaker 2: to the positive case for evolution. Now, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: the dichotomy that he set up is not necessarily a
Speaker 2: true dichotomy. I mean, it certainly looks that way with
Speaker 2: the benefit of hindsight. We know enough about evolution now
Speaker 2: that any naturalistic alternative to evolution has quite the bart
Speaker 2: clear before it can even begin to be taken seriously.
Speaker 2: And I'm not aware of any supernatural alternatives to evolution
Speaker 2: that don't ultimately boil down to a creator deity. Did
Speaker 2: it in one fell swoop. But his saying that it
Speaker 2: was either evolution or instantaneous creation is by no means
Speaker 2: an echo of Calvin's claim that our modern understanding of
Speaker 2: evolution was the only view of the origin of life
Speaker 2: aside from creationism, through all of human history.
Speaker 3: To account for the incredible diversity of things in our universe,
Speaker 3: naturalistic processes must have happened over an immense amount of
Speaker 3: deep time if there's no creator.
Speaker 2: Indeed, the way scientists learned that the Earth was old
Speaker 2: began with their observing of things that would have taken
Speaker 2: a long time to form, followed by them thinking, man,
Speaker 2: those would have taken a long time to form. As
Speaker 2: more and more of these things were observed, we started
Speaker 2: to get a better and better idea of just how
Speaker 2: long the Earth has been around for until radiometric dating
Speaker 2: came around and added a couple of zeros to the estimate.
Speaker 2: At any point, if the Earth were actually young, any
Speaker 2: step in this process could have ended up demonstrating that
Speaker 2: no great lengths of time were not actually necessary here,
Speaker 2: But instead every step wound up confirming that, yes, great
Speaker 2: lengths of time were indeed necessary.
Speaker 3: As correctly stated by Fujim, Believing that our universe, with
Speaker 3: such vast complexity could come into being fully formed is
Speaker 3: simply not viable to account for the vast diversity of
Speaker 3: things in our universe, All of these naturalistic processes must
Speaker 3: have happened over an immense amount of deep time if
Speaker 3: there is no creator.
Speaker 2: This quote sent me down a fun little rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: They have the citation for that quote as being the
Speaker 2: same as their last quote his book Science on Trial,
Speaker 2: the Case Revolution, page one ninety seven. Thing is, I
Speaker 2: literally just read that whole chapter and this didn't seem
Speaker 2: familiar to me. So I looked forward again and it
Speaker 2: wasn't on that page. No matter. They've messed up their
Speaker 2: citations before. So I'll just search through the book for
Speaker 2: a portion of that quote and huh, no results. That's okay.
Speaker 2: I've run into this before when using search operators like
Speaker 2: quotation marks. Any small mistake can yield zero results. Might
Speaker 2: be as simple as a comma missing or me mistyping something.
Speaker 2: So I'll just search for the word viable instead. It's
Speaker 2: not a very common word, so I shouldn't have to
Speaker 2: hunt through much. Huh four results, none of which are
Speaker 2: this quote. Weird Okay, so this quote isn't in the book.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe I'm using a different edition. Maybe he
Speaker 2: said this somewhere else that they just got their citation right.
Speaker 2: It's made up. It's completely made up on the written
Speaker 2: article version of this video. That citation is to an
Speaker 2: older article that Calvin wrote for the Institute for Creation Research.
Speaker 2: And when you go to that article, it's just Calvin
Speaker 2: summarizing what he sees as the atheist position. Calvin quoted
Speaker 2: himself and then attributed his words to an evolutionary biologist
Speaker 2: to give them more weight. What are you doing here, Calvin?
Speaker 3: To arrive at a point where we can observe all
Speaker 3: that we see around us today, there would have had
Speaker 3: to have been, and presumably still are, innumerable changes from
Speaker 3: simple to more complex taking place in matter over time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there both have been and still are. In
Speaker 2: one experiment, a self replicating RNA evolved into five DISTINCTI
Speaker 2: lineages and eventually settled into a fairly stable ecosystem with
Speaker 2: parasite host relationships as well as cooperative relationships. A simple
Speaker 2: strand of RNA developed into a complex micro ecosystem. So
Speaker 2: there you go.
Speaker 3: So, in essence, the concept of millions of years is
Speaker 3: an absolute philosophical necessity for an atheistic worldview.
Speaker 2: No, it isn't. If the universe had, through completely naturalistic processes,
Speaker 2: formed six thousand years ago, then that would not inherently
Speaker 2: rule out naturalism. It's just that there is so much
Speaker 2: evidence for an ancient Earth and universe that the only
Speaker 2: way the universe could possibly be young is through some
Speaker 2: variation of last thursdayism, the idea that God created the
Speaker 2: universe last Thursday, but made everything in such a way
Speaker 2: as to give the impression of age, including imbuing you
Speaker 2: with memories that go back to before last Thursday. That
Speaker 2: is essentially what creationism is. How can we see starlight
Speaker 2: that had to be traveling for billions of years in
Speaker 2: order to reach the Earth easy? God made the universe
Speaker 2: with starlight already in transit. He made trees with growth
Speaker 2: rings already in place. He made rocks with isotope concentrations that,
Speaker 2: when measured, would definitively prove that they are millions to
Speaker 2: billions of years old. That is just as absurd as
Speaker 2: last thursdayism, and it is the model that creationists rely
Speaker 2: on in order to claim that creationism is true. So yeah,
Speaker 2: back to the point, it's not that long ages are
Speaker 2: prerequisite of atheism. It's that atheism gives us no reason
Speaker 2: to doubt the plethora of evidence for long ages, so
Speaker 2: atheists are fine accepting them. Notably, there are plenty of
Speaker 2: Christians who accept them as well, because, as it turns out,
Speaker 2: a young Earth is not a philosophical necessity for Christianity
Speaker 2: any more than an old Earth is a philosophical necessity
Speaker 2: for atheism.
Speaker 3: At this point, some people might object and say, what mess.
Speaker 3: Philosophically these elements are required for an atheistic worldview, But
Speaker 3: if that's what the facts prove, then it's simply confirmation
Speaker 3: that their worldview is correct.
Speaker 2: Now you just got your premise wrong. As I have
Speaker 2: stated so often on this channel, atheism is the answer
Speaker 2: to one question, do you believe that a god or
Speaker 2: god exists? If the answer is no, you are an atheist,
Speaker 2: irrespective of your belief about the age of the universe.
Speaker 2: But anyway, go on.
Speaker 3: However, it's not quite that simple. Why because facts don't
Speaker 3: prove anything.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry, Calvin, I didn't realize that you were
Speaker 2: one of those people who thinks that truth is relative.
Speaker 2: I've noticed that there seems to be some weird inconsistencies
Speaker 2: in your worldview.
Speaker 3: Facts are always interpreted, and then the interpretations can be
Speaker 3: used as evidence to support whatever proposed historical narrative one desires.
Speaker 2: Not really I mean, a single fact in a vacuum
Speaker 2: might be able to work that way, but when you
Speaker 2: take a bunch of them together and then use them
Speaker 2: to make predictions, some interpretations become impossible to support. That's
Speaker 2: actually covered pretty well in the first half of chapter
Speaker 2: eleven of the book that you quoted earlier. Maybe you
Speaker 2: should read more than the introductory paragraph next time. Then
Speaker 2: we can actually give an example of a prediction made
Speaker 2: with evolutionary assumptions by just going back to what Calvin
Speaker 2: said and how I responded a couple of minutes ago.
Speaker 2: He said that if evolution is true, there would have
Speaker 2: to have been changes from simple to more complex, and
Speaker 2: these mechanisms should still be working today, so we should
Speaker 2: still be able to see it today. That is a prediction,
Speaker 2: and it's actually a pretty good one. In fact, it's
Speaker 2: not just a prediction that creationists used to call evolution
Speaker 2: into question. It's one that evolutionary researchers have made as well.
Speaker 2: As such, they designed the RNA experience that I referenced
Speaker 2: in response to this, which shows a natural tendency of
Speaker 2: an increasing complexity in an evolutionary system. Creationism, though, makes
Speaker 2: no such predictions, or rather the predictions that it does
Speaker 2: make tend to fail. If the universe was created six
Speaker 2: thousand years ago, we shouldn't be able to see stars
Speaker 2: that are much farther away than six thousand light years.
Speaker 2: It would be bigger than that because of the expansion
Speaker 2: of space time. So let's be generous and give them
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand light years. Well, without even busting out
Speaker 2: the telescope, you can see the Androma galaxy, which is
Speaker 2: two point five million light years away. So they fail
Speaker 2: that prediction. To quote the second page of chapter eleven
Speaker 2: of Science on trial, quote, if the creationist says that
Speaker 2: everything in the world, no matter how arbitrary, useless, or cruel,
Speaker 2: is just what we should expect of the Creator's infinitely
Speaker 2: inscrutable wisdom, he is tacitly admitting that creationism can predict
Speaker 2: nothing and so cannot be science. That didn't really fit
Speaker 2: with my astronomy analogy being focused on biology at all,
Speaker 2: but it still applies and proves that I read more
Speaker 2: of the book than Calvin did, so suck it.
Speaker 3: Case in point fossils. Both biblical creationists and evolutionists will
Speaker 3: point to the fossil record observable facts to support their
Speaker 3: beliefs about the past.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just that creationists are objectively and demonstrably wrong
Speaker 2: in their interpretation because their interpretation either makes no predictions
Speaker 2: about what we'll find, or else the predictions that it
Speaker 2: does make fail spectacularly, but they interpret those same facts
Speaker 2: and arrive at completely different conclusions. For example, evolutionists will
Speaker 2: typically assign vast ages to dinosaur fossils by a sign
Speaker 2: here he means measure, but continue.
Speaker 3: As according to their proposed naturalistic history of life on Earth,
Speaker 3: dinosaurs existed millions of years prior to humans.
Speaker 2: You're framing it wrong. No surprises there. Fossils are actually
Speaker 2: a part of the evidence that points to an old Earth.
Speaker 2: We didn't decide to pretend that the fossils are old
Speaker 2: in order to support the idea that we already had
Speaker 2: that the Earth was old. They just did that.
Speaker 3: They typically cite the rock layers in which these fossils
Speaker 3: are entombed, claiming that they were laid down slowly over
Speaker 3: millions of years of sedimentary deposition.
Speaker 2: We about to see him encourage a creationist misconception that
Speaker 2: makes them look super idiotic when talking to anyone who
Speaker 2: knows the first thing about this subject.
Speaker 3: However, biblical creationists interpret these same fossilized bones the facts
Speaker 3: as being evidence of the historical account of Noah's flood,
Speaker 3: and it's a fact that caused the rapid burial of
Speaker 3: the vast majority of the fossil record.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there we go. Rapid burial is usually part
Speaker 2: of the fossilization process. It's what allows in organisms remains
Speaker 2: to persist long enough for the organic matter to be
Speaker 2: replaced with minerals, usually as I seep in through groundwater.
Speaker 2: Creationist apologists will pretend not to know the difference between
Speaker 2: some layers formed slowly through millions of years of deposition,
Speaker 2: and sometimes the remains of an organism can be buried
Speaker 2: quickly and incorporated into a rock layer, thus leaving their
Speaker 2: audience with the misunderstanding that the conventional view is that
Speaker 2: all the rock layers form through extremely slow deposition, so
Speaker 2: any fossilized organism has to have been left exposed and
Speaker 2: untouched for thousands of years without decaying in order to
Speaker 2: have been fossilized. But like volcanoes are a thing that exist,
Speaker 2: mud slides happen. How even flooding can accomplish. This from
Speaker 2: for creationists is that we can tell which environments existed
Speaker 2: in the past by looking at the rock layers, and
Speaker 2: it turns out that global flood is just completely absent
Speaker 2: from the geologic record. In fact, if the majority of
Speaker 2: the rock layers were laid down in the global flood,
Speaker 2: as Calvin claims to believe, then there wouldn't be distinct
Speaker 2: rock layers. The whole thing would be one big flood deposit.
Speaker 2: So add that to the list of failed creationist predictions.
Speaker 2: So which explanation is right, the one that makes testable
Speaker 2: predictions that, when put to the test, actually hold up.
Speaker 3: We would argue that a dinosaur, some of them being
Speaker 3: over six feet tall and slumped over in depth, would
Speaker 3: have had to have been buried extremely fast for it
Speaker 3: to have not decayed and become disarticulated.
Speaker 2: So would I, and there are lots of ways for
Speaker 2: that to happen that are not a single global flood
Speaker 2: event that happened four thousand years ago and was ignored
Speaker 2: by several civilizations whose written records go right through that
Speaker 2: time period, like the Egyptians.
Speaker 3: We would also point out that the discovery of soft
Speaker 3: tissues remaining inside many of these bones are powerful evidence
Speaker 3: of a massive cataclysma a short while ago, approximately forty
Speaker 3: four hundred years that buried them rapidly.
Speaker 2: I don't really know how microscopic amounts of tissue are
Speaker 2: still soft translates to massive cataclysm forty four hundred years ago,
Speaker 2: But again we can make some predictions here. If creationism
Speaker 2: is true, then with what we know of the permineralization process,
Speaker 2: most fossils should be mostly original material. Soft tissue shouldn't
Speaker 2: just be microscopic and buried in the most protected areas
Speaker 2: of the fossil. It should be everywhere, along with fully
Speaker 2: recoverable genetic material. But it's not, so that's another point
Speaker 2: against creationism.
Speaker 3: However, neither group has a time machine in which to
Speaker 3: travel back and verify their interpretations of the exact same
Speaker 3: facts with absolute certainty.
Speaker 2: So we'll just have to stick with predictive power, which
Speaker 2: unequivocally shows younger creationism to be impossible unless God is
Speaker 2: a trickster God doing his version of Last Thursdayism.
Speaker 3: So it's up to each individual deliberating these explanations to
Speaker 3: decide which interpretation of the facts are better than the others.
Speaker 2: No, we've reached a point where creationism is well and
Speaker 2: truly ruled out.
Speaker 3: Whether you like it or not, And the same goes
Speaker 3: for whatever other facts one points to. In the Origins debate,
Speaker 3: arch atheist and anti creationist evolutionist Richard Dawkins.
Speaker 2: Oh, for's sake, he's the arch atheist. Now my word,
Speaker 2: You guys like to hype up the authority figures. Okay,
Speaker 2: So what did cultural Christian and guy who writes articles
Speaker 2: about how he thinks Claude is conscious now think?
Speaker 3: In speaking about the evidence for evolution in defense of
Speaker 3: his atheistic worldview, once said, you have got millions and
Speaker 3: millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can
Speaker 3: possibly dispute.
Speaker 2: Really, that nothing burger of a quote is what you
Speaker 2: felt the need to drag up, Richard, I can't condemn
Speaker 2: mild pedophilia Dawkins to support. Yeah, there's a bajillion data
Speaker 2: points and support evolution. What else do you have?
Speaker 3: These facts, he points to, can easily be disputed and
Speaker 3: interpreted towards a biblical explanation, far more convincingly than the
Speaker 3: materialistic counterparts he espouses.
Speaker 2: By easily, he means you have to go through so
Speaker 2: many mental contortions that you wind up tying your brain
Speaker 2: into a Gordian knot.
Speaker 3: For example, no one has even proposed a reasonable explanation
Speaker 3: as to how DNA, which Dawkins admits being like a
Speaker 3: digital code, could have occurred without intelligence.
Speaker 2: It took literal seconds of googling to find an academic
Speaker 2: article titled Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA replication
Speaker 2: machineries do better calvin it must have.
Speaker 3: Its origin from an intelligent mind, as no coded language
Speaker 3: system has ever been observed to come about naturalistically.
Speaker 2: And that includes DNA, because, as it turns out, it's
Speaker 2: not a coded language system. If it were a coded
Speaker 2: language system, then we'd be able to figure out what
Speaker 2: genes do by reading the code. But instead researchers have
Speaker 2: to do a bunch of experiments that repeatedly activating in
Speaker 2: deactivating specific genes in various biochemical environments and then noting
Speaker 2: the differences. And that's actually a very oversimplified picture of
Speaker 2: how they figure this out. In no way is DNA
Speaker 2: as simple and straightforward as a coded language system. It's
Speaker 2: almost like it's a mess of chemical reactions that develop
Speaker 2: from previous messes of chemical reactions.
Speaker 3: Or what about microbiology or astronomy, which is the more
Speaker 3: reasonable explanation for the incredible complexity we observe in the
Speaker 3: simplest of living things.
Speaker 2: Evolution. Simplicity is a hallmark of good design. If you're
Speaker 2: designing a thing, then that thing should be no more
Speaker 2: complex than it needs to be to do what you're
Speaker 2: designing it to do. More complexity means more ways for
Speaker 2: things to go wrong. So the fact that the simplest
Speaker 2: of organisms is way more complex than it needs to
Speaker 2: be points to evolution, not intelligent design.
Speaker 3: All the way from the mind boggling precision in space
Speaker 3: discovered through incredibly powerful telescopes, there.
Speaker 2: Isn't really any precision in space. It's just a bunch
Speaker 2: of material interacting gravitationally with each other.
Speaker 3: When interpreted correctly, these facts point to our wondrous creator,
Speaker 3: the God of the Bible, quite easily, but fly in
Speaker 3: the face of naturalistic interpretations.
Speaker 2: Now, when interpreted correctly, you realize that we wouldn't be
Speaker 2: able to see ninety nine percent of the stuff that
Speaker 2: we can see if the universe were indeed only six
Speaker 2: thousand years old. But I do wonder how does the
Speaker 2: fact that light from distant objects has been in transit
Speaker 2: from millions to billions of years thus allowing us to
Speaker 2: see things that are millions to billions of light years
Speaker 2: away fly in the face of the naturalistic interpretation that
Speaker 2: the universe is billions of years old.
Speaker 3: The challenge is most people, including Christians, have only ever
Speaker 3: seen an evolutionary explanation of these facts, and so conclude
Speaker 3: they must somehow be correct. They often don't even realize
Speaker 3: there are other interpretations available and think the evolutionary interpretation
Speaker 3: itself is akin to fact.
Speaker 2: I very much doubt all that, at least in North America,
Speaker 2: where massive chunks of the population are younger as creationists,
Speaker 2: the numbers are something like forty percent of Americans and
Speaker 2: twenty three percent of Canadians believing that God created people
Speaker 2: in their current form within the last ten thousand years.
Speaker 2: In raw numbers, that's about one hundred and forty six
Speaker 2: million people just in Canada and the United States that
Speaker 2: are on Calvin side in this debate. Despite overwhelming lack
Speaker 2: of evidence for creationism and the plethora of evidence for evolution.
Speaker 3: It's actually easy to see why so many people believe
Speaker 3: in the story of evolution today because state runs, school
Speaker 3: systems and media throughout the Western world teach it as fact.
Speaker 3: In science to impressionable children.
Speaker 2: Everywhere I know, right heaven forbid, facts and science are
Speaker 2: taught us facts and science to children. They might end
Speaker 2: up learning facts and science if we keep this up.
Speaker 3: However, this interpretation of everything is based on a philosophy
Speaker 3: called secular humanism, founded on atheistic principles.
Speaker 2: I would like to point out that the images using
Speaker 2: to drum up fear of North America being overrun with
Speaker 2: secularists are all AI generated, So clearly the problem must
Speaker 2: not be that bad if they need to use image
Speaker 2: generation to make fake pictures of the things that they're
Speaker 2: afraid of. Right, That's where I'm going to leave it
Speaker 2: for today. He just goes into some remode after this.
Speaker 2: Today's comment today comes just from Copprofish, who says, sorry,
Speaker 2: but given the environmental impact of gender of AI, I
Speaker 2: do not believe a video like this is ethically justifiable,
Speaker 2: leaving my first ever dislike and will not be watching
Speaker 2: this video. This was on my AI Jesus video from
Speaker 2: last week where I had a conversation with an AI
Speaker 2: Jesus chatbot and went over some of the very scummy
Speaker 2: business practices of the company that was offering the chatbot.
Speaker 2: And yes, the environmental impact of AI is massive. I'm
Speaker 2: not going to pretend otherwise, but there's two things here
Speaker 2: that I hope may change your perspective slightly. First is
Speaker 2: that the environmental impact of AI is in the same
Speaker 2: sort of category as the environmental impact of recycling. There
Speaker 2: seems to be a massive focus on individual responsibility rather
Speaker 2: than corporate or governmental response. AI uses a lot of resources,
Speaker 2: so you personally should never use it. Meanwhile, the bulk
Speaker 2: of AI use is massive corporations and government contract Your
Speaker 2: individual use is a minuscule drop in the ocean. Same
Speaker 2: with recycling. Yeah, recycling is better than not recycling, but
Speaker 2: wouldn't it be better still if we just didn't make
Speaker 2: so many things out of disposable, single use plastics. To
Speaker 2: begin with, AD campaigns promoting recycling were initially paid for
Speaker 2: buy oil companies, and they focus very much on personal responsibility.
Speaker 2: If you don't recycle enough, then a single tear will
Speaker 2: roll down the cheek of the Italian guy playing the
Speaker 2: Native American from that one ad. So instead of there
Speaker 2: being regulations restricting plastic use, it's on the end user
Speaker 2: to recycle responsibly in order to save the planet. It
Speaker 2: doesn't matter whether you or I personally use AI. It's
Speaker 2: already being used on a massive scale by massive entities
Speaker 2: that we can't hope to control or rain in without
Speaker 2: governmental action. But second, and possibly more importantly, it seems
Speaker 2: as though shaming people for using AI does not actually
Speaker 2: discourage AI use, but educating them about it does. The
Speaker 2: more you know about these AI bots and how they work,
Speaker 2: the less likely you are to use them, and when
Speaker 2: you do use them, the less likely you are to
Speaker 2: rely on them in problematic ways. If that is true,
Speaker 2: then videos going over some of the problems with AI
Speaker 2: without telling people that they should feel bad for using
Speaker 2: it are much more likely to result in less AI
Speaker 2: use overall than a video telling people that is destructive
Speaker 2: and you should never ever use it and you should
Speaker 2: feel bad if you ever have used it. Along those lines,
Speaker 2: I'm actually going to leave a link to a Doctor Fatama,
Speaker 2: a video that goes over this along with a bunch
Speaker 2: of other issues with AI, and gives advice on how
Speaker 2: to more effectively oppose it. It is a fairly long one,
Speaker 2: but it is very well done. I highly recommend it.
Speaker 2: Thanks for watching. I'll be back next Friday with more,
Speaker 2: But if you need to get your rutofis in before then.
Speaker 2: I live stream of service every Wednesday eight thirty Eastern
Speaker 2: on my other channel, A Watering Hole, and periodically published
Speaker 2: shorts on the channel Vice Rhino Shorts. Thanks to Piper
Speaker 2: for being my editor and special things is always to
Speaker 2: my patrons, who are the creationists who completely fabricate the
Speaker 2: evolutionary by all just quote. That is my channel. If
Speaker 2: you'd like to blatantly lie will claiming you believe that
Speaker 2: lies are never justifiable, you can join us on Patreon
Speaker 2: for as little as a dollar per week over at
Speaker 2: patreon dot com, slash Vice Rhino, or by supporting the
Speaker 2: channel and one of the other methods that can be
Speaker 2: found at link stop vitron dot com, which is also
Speaker 2: where you find links to my other projects. If for
Speaker 2: whatever reason you want to send me stuff, my piobox
Speaker 2: addresses in the description see and next time, who should need?
Speaker 2: Who's an EP puppy? Who's an EP puppy? And I've
Speaker 2: been sleeping like a dog? Okay, fine, you can stay there.
Speaker 2: Yeah you're sick of this? What if I get you
Speaker 2: a treat? Oh? Those ears perked up for that. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'll get you a treat. This is three oh one.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna stop recording, but I have to go
Speaker 2: get the dog a treat for being such a good
Speaker 2: girl sitting with me while I record. I know she
Speaker 2: doesn't like