0:03 [Music]
0:07 a theropod dinosaur was found to eat
0:09 birds now don't you understand it's the
0:11 therapod dinosaurs that supposedly
0:12 evolved into birds and they go out there
0:14 they find this therapod this is
0:16 published in a secular Journal plus one
0:19 and you look in here and there's stomach
0:22 contents that got preserved as well and
0:23 so they can go up and they can do
0:24 studies on that like what did it eat
0:27 what was its last couple of meals here
0:28 and they can identify those bones they
0:30 were from different birds so how's the
0:32 therapods evolved into Birds when birds
0:33 are already around being eaten by
0:35 therapods you see when you start looking
0:36 at the details it is impossible to
0:39 change a dinosaur into a bird yikes well
0:41 hi there my name is Clint ladla I'm an
0:43 evolutionary biologist I study
0:45 evolutionary ecology particularly life
0:48 history Evolution as well as Evolution
0:50 acceptance through teaching I also
0:53 believe in God and I spend a lot of my
0:55 time talking to Young Earth creationists
0:58 not to mock or ridicule but to be sure
0:59 that I accurately understand their
1:02 position positions their arguments and
1:04 what they actually think partially so
1:05 that I'll know how to properly respond
1:07 to their most common arguments in the
1:09 classroom I don't want to misrepresent
1:11 their positions or dismiss them without
1:13 truly evaluating them on their merits
1:15 especially in front of a class but in
1:16 addition to that I want to understand
1:19 their arguments because I'm open to the
1:22 possibility that they're right as I
1:24 think any good scientist should be and
1:25 while many of the arguments that young
1:27 Earth creationists put forward are
1:30 easily refuted not all of them om AR I
1:33 have on multiple occasions summarized
1:36 their strongest arguments to create a
1:38 Steelman argument the strongest version
1:40 of the young Earth creationist argument
1:42 that I can produce and I've run those
1:44 Steelman arguments by as many
1:47 creationists as I can to be sure that
1:49 they're an accurate representation of
1:51 their actual thoughts making
1:53 improvements as I learn ways that I've
1:55 missed the mark to one degree or another
1:57 and I'll provide the most recent version
1:59 of my Steelman explanation of young
2:01 Earth creat ISM a little bit later in
2:03 this video however first I'd like to
2:07 address the opposite of a Steelman a
2:09 straw man instead of the strongest
2:11 version of an argument some people
2:13 deliberately or accidentally assign
2:16 arguments to their opposition that are
2:19 weaker than their opposition's actual
2:21 positions and then instead of addressing
2:23 their strongest arguments or even
2:25 positions actually held by their
2:28 opposition they tear down these weaker
2:30 false assigned arguments this is a
2:33 logical fallacy and it's never very
2:35 persuasive to have somebody tell you
2:37 that you're wrong when that person
2:39 demonstrates that they don't have the
2:41 slightest idea what you actually think
2:43 they disagree with something that you
2:46 don't agree with either why would that
2:47 change your mind about what you actually
2:49 think and in my discussions with young
2:51 Earth creationists I often encounter
2:54 arguments against Evolution that do not
2:55 represent the actual positions of
2:58 evolutionary biology straw man arguments
3:00 so let's take a look at a few arguments
3:02 presented by some of the biggest
3:04 creationist thought leaders to see if
3:06 they're correctly or incorrectly
3:08 representing the actual positions of
3:10 mainstream biology let's start off with
3:12 the one we just saw this video came to
3:14 us from Answers in Genesis a nonprofit
3:16 creationist organization founded by Ken
3:18 Ham who you may know from his famous
3:21 debate with Bill NY in 2014 the Creation
3:24 Museum and Arc Encounters in Kentucky or
3:25 his videos on YouTube and other
3:28 platforms this video was reporting on a
3:31 study from plus one where bird fossils
3:34 were found in the abdominal cavity of a
3:36 nonavian theropod dinosaur showing that
3:40 this dinosaur had predated upon Birds
3:42 the speaker in this video found this
3:44 interesting as it's the theropod
3:46 dinosaurs that supposedly evolved into
3:49 birds so how is it that theropods
3:51 evolved into Birds when birds were
3:54 already around being eaten by theropods
3:56 and then he says when you start looking
3:58 at the details it's impossible to change
4:00 a dinosaur into a bir bird so the
4:02 Assumption here is that birds cannot be
4:05 descendants of theropods if they
4:07 coexisted with theropods and they
4:09 clearly did given that theropods ate
4:12 them you can eat your descendants but
4:15 not your distant descendants and that's
4:17 true you can't eat your distant
4:20 descendants so the therapod that ate
4:23 those birds cannot reasonably be the
4:25 distant ancestor of those birds or birds
4:28 in general I'd say that is correct but
4:29 there is a clear misconception here
4:32 about the relationship between birds and
4:34 dinosaurs the same misconception that
4:37 Timmy had in Jurassic Park do you really
4:38 think the dinosaurs turned into birds
4:40 and that's where they all went
4:42 unfortunately that is not and never has
4:44 been the explanation for what happened
4:46 to the dinosaurs or even the theropods
4:49 for one thing bird Evolution dates back
4:51 to far before the extinction of the
4:54 non-avian dinosaurs birds first appeared
4:57 in the late Jurassic the non-avian
4:58 dinosaurs didn't go extinct until the
5:01 end of the Cretaceous this means that
5:03 birds and other dinosaurs including
5:06 other theropods coexisted for over 80
5:08 million years about the same amount of
5:10 time that theropods which first appeared
5:12 in the Triassic existed before the first
5:14 Birds came to be those theropods of the
5:17 Triassic and most of the Jurassic would
5:20 include the non-bird ancestors of birds
5:23 but the other theropods didn't cease to
5:25 exist just because Birds came to be just
5:27 like monkeys didn't disappear just
5:29 because humans came to be most of the
5:31 most famous theropods of all time came
5:34 from the Cretaceous theropods like T-Rex
5:36 Spinosaurus Carnotaurus Velociraptor
5:39 Giganotosaurus Utah raptor and danicus
5:42 and none of their descendants ever
5:44 became Birds but most of them likely ate
5:46 birds at least whenever they got the
5:48 chance there was never a time when any
5:50 of these theropods walked the earth when
5:52 Birds did not exist as well but when all
5:54 of the other dinosaurs including these
5:55 theropods when
5:57 extinct the birds were the only ones
5:59 weird enough to make it we actually have
6:01 a whole video on how they managed to
6:03 survive but the fact that later
6:06 therapods ate Birds has nothing to do
6:08 with whether or not birds are theropods
6:10 you just can't get eaten out of a CLA
6:12 just because a python gets eaten by a
6:13 king cobra that doesn't change the fact
6:16 that they're both snakes and the
6:17 descendants of snakes though it is
6:20 highly unlikely that the king cobra
6:22 itself is the ancestor of its
6:25 constrictor Cuisine is it impossible to
6:27 change a dinosaur into a bird I
6:28 certainly see no evidence that it is but
6:31 if it is impossible it has nothing to do
6:33 with whether or not non-avian therapods
6:35 ate birds in the late Jurassic and
6:36 Cretaceous it would be shocking if they
6:39 didn't but if you ever find a Triassic
6:42 theropod with a belly full of birds come
6:44 back that would be a GameChanger here's
6:46 what I can tell you about science it is
6:48 observable and repeatable has anyone
6:50 ever observed or repeated the big bang
6:52 no anyone ever observed or repeated
6:54 millions of years no anyone ever
6:56 observed or repeated the changing of a
6:57 single- cell organism like an amoeba
6:59 into a goat never seen it that's
7:02 actually a religious worldview you see
7:03 it's a battle over two different
7:06 religions okay here's another video of
7:07 that same speaker from Answers in
7:09 Genesis and here he is saying that
7:11 because science is observable and
7:13 repeatable and because nobody has ever
7:15 observed or repeated the Big Bang
7:17 millions of years or single celled
7:20 organisms evolving into goats that these
7:23 things are not science but religion and
7:25 it is true that nobody has ever directly
7:27 observed the Big Bang millions of years
7:29 of history or the evolution of goats
7:31 from unicellular ancestors but saying
7:33 that these things are beyond the scope
7:36 of science to understand demonstrates a
7:38 fundamental misunder understanding of
7:41 what science is and how it works science
7:45 is not what is repeatedly observable in
7:47 fact we don't need science for what is
7:49 repeatedly observable but repetition and
7:52 observation are essential for science to
7:54 function because science is a
7:56 methodology by which we create and test
8:00 models of what cannot be observed using
8:02 what can basically based on what has
8:04 been observed up to this point I create
8:06 a model that makes predictions about
8:09 what I should observe in the future if
8:11 my model is a reasonable approximation
8:14 of reality I then test those predictions
8:17 to see if what I observe matches or does
8:19 not match those of the model if the
8:22 predictions are correct once and then
8:24 wrong forever after then the model got
8:27 lucky but probably isn't a good model it
8:29 probably isn't a good approximation of real
8:29 real
8:31 that is why I check its predictions
8:33 repeatedly not just once to ensure that
8:35 it's a useful model and not just a lucky
8:38 one that is in essence how science works
8:40 and the reality is that science is not
8:43 only a tool but probably the best tool
8:45 that we have for understanding events
8:49 that happened just once in the past
8:51 events that cannot be repeated or
8:53 observed directly but that can be
8:55 understood based on the pieces of
8:57 information that can be observed in the
9:00 here and now like say uh the scene of a
9:02 crime if you're a forensic scientist and
9:04 you walk into a room where you observe a
9:06 dead body with multiple knife wounds
9:09 that you measured to be 6 in deep the
9:11 body also has some tissue not matching
9:14 the victims under the fingernails of its
9:16 right hand leading away from the body
9:17 You observe some bloody Footprints you
9:20 identify to be from size 10 Jordans
9:21 which lead to a dumpster Where You
9:24 observe a bloody 6-in knife covered in
9:27 fingerprints upon examination you find
9:29 that the fingerprints match those of one
9:32 Alan Tois who is a known sack of poop
9:33 and when you go to the residence of Mr
9:35 Tois You observe next to the door a pair
9:37 of Jordans with slight traces of blood
9:39 in the tread of the souls Mr TOS has
9:42 four parallel scratches on his left
9:44 cheek but Mr TOS is the only person
9:46 alive today that you suspect to have
9:48 observed the murder directly and when
9:51 questioned he says that he knows nothing
9:53 about any murder and you know that since
9:55 the murder cannot be repeated or
9:57 observed by anyone else well any
9:59 position that you would have on the
10:01 occurrence would just be a religious
10:04 worldview right science clearly can't
10:08 help us understand right or is science
10:10 probably the best tool that we have to
10:12 help us understand what happened
10:14 interestingly none of those things that
10:16 you have repeatedly observed were
10:18 science they were just observations you
10:20 didn't need science to observe them
10:22 observations have existed since long
10:24 before humans but I bet you could put
10:26 together a model based on the things
10:29 that you did observe that would generate
10:31 some shockingly accurate predictions
10:34 about what you could potentially observe
10:36 in the future for example what size
10:39 would you predict Mr to's Jordans to be
10:41 do you predict that the blood on those
10:43 Jordans would match that of the murder
10:45 victim there's a security camera in the
10:47 alley with the dumpster do you predict
10:48 that the security footage would show
10:50 somebody matching Mr to' basic
10:51 description the night of the apparent
10:54 murder do you predict that the DNA in
10:55 the tissue under the nails of the victim
10:58 would match that of Mr toas this is
11:01 science obviously nobody alive today has
11:02 observed the origin of the universe
11:04 millions of years elapsing or the
11:05 evolution of goats from single- cell
11:08 ancestors if those events occurred they
11:10 only occurred once and they occurred in
11:13 the past they won't repeat and they
11:15 cannot be observed directly but is
11:17 science ill equipped to address such
11:20 phenomena of course not questions like
11:22 these are the reason that we have
11:24 science for evolution to be true it
11:27 requires a gain of information we've
11:29 never observed that but what we do
11:32 observe is a clear loss of information
11:35 we can clearly see a loss of genetic
11:37 information from we say the LI into the
11:39 domestic house cat we even see this in
11:42 the fossil record where yes we would
11:44 recognize all of these as Triceratops
11:46 but they're still a little bit different
11:48 right we see this variation within
11:51 created kind so how many copsy and kind
11:52 were on the ark we would say two they
11:54 would have had all the genetic potential
11:57 to create the copian after the global
11:59 flood so natural selection
12:02 does not provide any brand new
12:05 information it is pulling information
12:08 that already exists completely opposite
12:10 of evolution which requires new
12:11 information I suspect we're going to
12:13 have a lot to talk about in today's
12:15 patreon extras video so uh if you don't
12:17 support us on patreon already now it's
12:19 probably a great time okay so that was
12:21 another great video from Answers in
12:24 Genesis and in summary um Evolution
12:27 requires a gain of information something
12:30 that we've quote never observed what we
12:32 do observe is a loss of information for
12:34 example a lion clearly has more
12:36 information than does a house cat it
12:39 would take a loss of information to go
12:42 from a lion to a house cat the speaker
12:43 then goes on to explain that the
12:45 diversity of ceratopsians are all
12:48 clearly the same basic thing Triceratops
12:50 but they aren't exactly the same because
12:53 there is variation within what she calls
12:55 created kinds and I'll explain more
12:57 about created kinds here in a minute it
12:59 is her contention that there were two
13:01 ceratopsians on Noah's Arc and those two
13:03 ceratopsians possessed all of the
13:05 genetic potential to produce all of the
13:07 ceratopsians that existed After the
13:11 flood because ceratopsian Diversified
13:13 once again following the flood she then
13:15 moves on to say correctly that natural
13:18 selection does not provide any brand new
13:20 information but is rather pulling from
13:23 information that already exists and that
13:26 this is the opposite of evolution which
13:28 requires new information so there's a
13:31 lot to there let's start with a gain of
13:33 information I see this argument
13:35 presented by Young Earth creationists
13:37 regularly I often struggle to get them
13:40 to specify exactly what they mean by
13:42 information but I think it's fair to
13:43 assume that they're referring to genetic
13:45 material of some kind so the contention
13:49 is that Evolution requires a gain of
13:51 genetic material and while that isn't
13:53 true in every instance some Evolution
13:55 can occur through loss of genetic
13:57 material by and large that's a fair
13:59 point you aren't going to go from the
14:01 simplest organisms that have ever
14:04 existed to complex multicellular life
14:06 without gaining additional genetic
14:08 material at some point she then says
14:11 that we've never observed that this is
14:13 why I always ask what they mean by
14:16 information because if she's referring
14:17 to genetic
14:20 material that claim is just blatantly
14:21 false we observe this with some
14:24 regularity at times it leads to nearly
14:27 instantaneous speciation not only do we
14:29 see Tiny additions of genetic material
14:31 such as insertion mutations but we
14:34 observe Gene chromosome and even whole
14:37 genome duplications How Can You observe
14:39 a doubling of the genetic information in
14:41 a single generation and still claim that
14:43 we have never observed a gain of
14:45 information the most charitable take
14:47 that I can come up with is that you're
14:49 referring to the fact that duplication
14:52 adds new copies of existing
14:56 information but nothing new and that is
14:58 where other forms of mutation come into
15:02 play she says that we observe a clear
15:04 loss of information and I think what
15:05 she's saying here is that when mutations
15:07 occur excluding the duplications that we
15:10 just discussed they change the genome in
15:12 some way any information that was there
15:15 before is now lost because it was
15:17 changed and this is significant because
15:20 when genetic information is changed in
15:23 many cases it ceases to do what it did
15:25 before perhaps the new function will be
15:26 more beneficial in terms of overall
15:29 lifetime reproductive success but the
15:33 prior function is now lost that is
15:36 unless this mutation occurs after a
15:38 duplication event because if you have
15:39 two copies of the same gene then a
15:41 mutation to one causing it to do
15:43 something new will allow a new function
15:46 new information to occur while the other
15:49 copy is still doing what it did
15:51 historically and if having a new copy of
15:53 a gene that is now modified to do
15:55 something different while the previous
15:58 function of the gene remains intact does
16:00 not count as new information then I
16:02 really need for somebody to tell me what
16:04 they're talking about when they say new
16:07 information okay her next claim is that
16:09 a house cat represents a loss of
16:11 information compared to a lion I suppose
16:13 because a lion is so much larger than a
16:15 house cat but how much information does
16:19 a lion possess 38 chromosomes compare
16:22 that to a house cat that only possesses
16:25 38 chromosomes oh yeah that's that's the
16:27 same number and a much smaller number
16:30 than something like a lampay which possesses
16:31 possesses
16:33 174 not to mention the numbers that we
16:35 see in plants which can self- fertilize
16:37 making whole genome duplications more
16:40 common some of them have over a thousand
16:42 and some single celled organisms have
16:46 over 10,000 so I'm not exactly sure how
16:48 we know that house cats show a loss of
16:51 information versus a lion it is a loss
16:53 of information versus a walking catfish
16:57 though 104 what it is pretty clearly is
17:00 a loss in size that or lions have shown
17:03 a gain in size and that is not
17:05 necessarily due to a gain or a loss of
17:08 information clearly not chromosomes but
17:11 definitely a change in the genes
17:13 specifically responsible for size but
17:16 now we're getting into the ark and some
17:18 discussion of created kinds and to
17:20 understand what she was saying there
17:21 we're going to have to understand a bit
17:23 more about what Young Earth creationists
17:25 believe and so I see no better time than
17:28 now to lay out my Steelman of the young
17:30 Earth creationist position modern young
17:32 Earth creationists YC's accept
17:34 essentially all of the mechanisms of
17:36 evolution accepted by evolutionary
17:38 biology except for mutation as the
17:40 original source of all genetic
17:42 information they think that all
17:44 variation between organisms was created
17:47 by God intact at Creation in a more
17:49 perfect form than is present today and
17:51 manifests itself differently in
17:54 different individuals within a kind due
17:56 to that information being corrupted over
17:59 time in differential ways and due to
18:01 differential expression of genes already
18:03 present in the genome epigenetics
18:05 adaptation is very much accepted but the
18:08 raw material upon which selection acts
18:11 is not from mutation but variation that
18:13 has existed in the Genome of the kinds
18:16 since their initial creation this also
18:17 helps explain why young Earth
18:19 creationists think that Evolution occurs
18:21 much faster than would be predicted by
18:24 evolutionary biology and how complex
18:26 structures that are irreducibly complex
18:29 could exist kinds also known as baramin
18:33 are a bit difficult to Define most often
18:34 the idea of a Kind reflects the
18:36 biological species concept but it is
18:39 more broad extending to any organisms in
18:42 a group where gene flow can occur even
18:43 through several intermediates as with
18:46 ring species being able to hybridize
18:48 with any other members of a kind is
18:50 enough to confirm membership to a given
18:52 kind and hybrids do not need to be
18:54 viable for more than a few cell
18:57 divisions for their existence to confirm
18:58 that the hybridizing species are members
19:01 of the same kind what truly defines a
19:03 kind is that each kind has an
19:06 independent origin diversification even
19:09 speciation can occur within a kind it is
19:12 even possible for a species to become
19:14 entirely reproductively isolated from
19:16 other members of its kind thus the
19:18 ability to produce a hybrid confirms
19:21 membership to a kind but the inability
19:23 to do so does not confirm that they are
19:25 not of that kind in harmony with
19:27 evolutionary biology many young Earth
19:28 creationists think think that
19:30 diversification and speciation occur
19:33 more rapidly when many environmental
19:35 niches are available such as immediately
19:37 following the fall of Adam and Eve or
19:39 after the great flood it is thought that
19:42 in both instances only a few members of
19:44 each kind existed and that the diversity
19:46 of species found within each kind has
19:49 evolved since those events but many
19:51 believe that the rate of speciation is
19:54 slower today than it was then because
19:57 there are fewer open niches this means
19:59 that millions of species have Arisen
20:01 from a comparatively small number in the
20:04 last few thousand years but as evolution
20:05 is not by the number of
20:07 beneficial mutations that occur over
20:10 time it can proceed forward much faster
20:12 than would be predicted by evolutionary
20:14 biology humans are their own kind
20:16 created separately and independently of
20:19 all other living things they are not
20:21 related to any other species that exists
20:23 now or ever despite similarities to
20:25 other organisms some presumed human
20:27 relatives from the fossil record such as
20:30 neander s were fully human and not
20:31 members of a different kind humans
20:33 diversify just like other kinds there
20:35 are some fundamental disagreements
20:37 between young Earth creationist views of
20:40 evolution and biology's Views one the
20:42 Earth is much younger per the young
20:45 Earth creationist view two mutation does
20:47 not produce changes that increase
20:49 Fitness and if it does not to the point
20:52 of creating complex novel structures
20:55 three life has many independent Origins
20:57 and each kind originated with a larger
20:59 and more more robust genome than its
21:02 members possess today there are some
21:04 surprising fundamental agreements
21:05 between young Earth creationist views of
21:08 evolution and biologies Views one
21:10 speciation can and does occur and
21:12 multiple species can all arise from the
21:15 same common ancestors two the mechanisms
21:17 of evolution are all valid especially
21:20 adaptation except for mutation as being
21:22 essential for the evolution of complex
21:25 structures and three diversification may
21:27 happen more rapidly when niches are
21:28 available if you're a young Earth
21:30 creationist and you see any flaws in
21:32 that summary please don't hesitate to
21:34 call me out I've run it by as many
21:36 creationists as I can but I want to
21:38 understand not misrepresent anyway that
21:41 should explain most of the ceratopsian
21:42 diversification following the flood
21:44 comments I'm really not here to
21:46 criticize their beliefs but rather to
21:48 correct any misconceptions that they
21:50 have about evolutionary biology so let's
21:53 talk about the last part natural
21:56 selection does not provide any brand new
21:58 information that's a fact
22:01 that's just true natural selection is
22:05 not a force it's a consequence it's the
22:07 consequence of the fact that some
22:09 versions of a gene work out better in a
22:10 given environment than others as
22:12 measured by the likelihood that an
22:15 individual with that Gene variant will
22:17 reproduce versus individuals with other
22:19 variants this is true and it is
22:21 observably true the young Earth
22:24 creationists agree that this is true and
22:25 because of this impact on Lifetime
22:28 reproductive success some variant become
22:30 more common over time and others
22:32 diminish and even Disappear Completely
22:35 natural selection eliminates variation
22:38 it does not produce it this is a fact
22:41 completely opposite of evolution which
22:43 requires new information this is the
22:45 part where she gets a bit over her skis
22:48 yes Evolution at some point requires new
22:51 information but not every aspect of
22:53 evolution needs to be the one that
22:55 produces it mutation produces new
22:57 information as we discussed earlier and
23:00 natural SEL ction happens because some
23:01 of that new information works out better
23:04 than others with respect to Lifetime
23:06 reproductive success mutation randomly
23:08 or nearly randomly produces new
23:10 information and natural selection
23:13 non-randomly reduces that information
23:15 down to the subset that works the best
23:17 in a given environment not deliberately
23:19 just as a consequence of that unequal
23:21 reproductive success over multiple
23:23 generations and all of this is
23:26 repeatedly observable this doesn't mean
23:28 that all genetic information originated
23:30 in random unguided mutation but saying
23:32 that we have never observed a gain of
23:35 information that's just false he said
23:36 hey folks would you like me to give you
23:40 a tour we said that would be great sir
23:41 well the first place we stopped on the
23:44 tour was the geologic time chart so
23:45 we're standing over there and the guide
23:47 said now folks this layer of rock right
23:51 here is about 70 million years old oh my
23:53 daughter was 12 years old at the time
23:56 she raised her hand she said mister how
23:57 do you know that layer is 70 million
24:00 years years old he said honey that's a
24:01 good question we tell the age of the
24:03 layers by what types of fossils we find
24:06 in them they're called index fossils and
24:07 by the way that's correct that's what
24:09 the textbook says scientists use index
24:12 fossils to determine the age of rock
24:15 layers she said thank you sir we walked
24:16 around the other side we're standing
24:17 over here and the guide said now folks
24:20 these bones are about 100 million years
24:22 old my daughter raised her hand again
24:24 she said sir how do you know those bones
24:26 are 100 million years old he said well
24:28 honey we tell the age of the Bones by
24:30 which layer they came from she said uh
24:32 sir when we were standing over there you
24:33 told me you knew the age of the layers
24:35 by the bones and now you're telling me
24:36 you know the age of the bones by the
24:38 layers she said isn't that circular
24:40 reasoning you looked at my daughter he
24:43 looked at me I wasn't about to help him
24:46 I thought wow this is going to be good I
24:48 have got to hear this he looked back at
24:49 my daughter he said wow you're right
24:51 that is circular reasoning he said I
24:53 never thought of that before that fellow
24:55 drove 50 miles one way that night to
24:56 hear me come to come hear me speak in
24:59 Union Center South Dakota the crowd
25:00 swelled to
25:03 39 we set up a chair okay so this is
25:06 Kent hovind telling about a visit that
25:09 he and his daughter had to a museum the
25:11 museum guide when talking about the
25:13 geologic timetable explained that the
25:16 layers were dated by fossils called
25:18 index fossils and then he explained that
25:20 some other fossils bones were dated by
25:23 the layer that they came from and his
25:25 daughter Ken hov's daughter pointed out
25:27 that the guide said that they knew the
25:30 age of the layers by the bones and the
25:33 bones by the layers and that this was
25:36 circular reasoning and this left the guy
25:38 dumbfounded and in agreement that this
25:40 was circular reasoning now I should
25:42 mention that while Kent hovind is one of
25:45 the best known creationists even Answers
25:47 in Genesis has criticized him for using
25:49 poor arguments that have been abandoned
25:51 by most of the young Earth creationist
25:53 movement so he doesn't necessarily speak
25:56 for all young Earth creationists but I
25:59 do see this clip presen Ed very often in
26:00 the groups where I engage in many of
26:02 these discussions so it is definitely
26:06 worth talking about okay is this an
26:09 example of circular reasoning as
26:12 presented yeah absolutely unless you
26:15 know what an index fossil is and how
26:17 they became index fossils index fossils
26:19 are common fossils that appear over a
26:22 very broad Geographic range but only for
26:25 a fairly short temporal range over a lot
26:28 of area but only for for a short period
26:31 of history that last part is the most
26:33 important part because if they only
26:35 existed for a relatively short period of
26:38 time their presence can be used to
26:40 estimate the age of the rock layers
26:42 where they're found because they only
26:45 existed at that point in time but how do
26:47 we know when and for how long they
26:52 existed this is the key and the answer
26:54 isn't from the bones that would be
26:56 circular reasoning fortunately index
26:59 fossils are not the only means that we
27:02 have to date Rock layers one of the most
27:04 valuable and widely applicable methods
27:07 is radiometric dating radiometric dating
27:09 allows us to utilize our knowledge of
27:12 radioactive decay to estimate the age of
27:15 samples containing radioactive elements
27:18 for example uranium two forms of uranium
27:22 u236 and u238 can each be used to date
27:24 Rock samples this is because of our
27:26 knowledge of how long it takes for half
27:29 of a sample of uranium to convert itself
27:31 into lead the half-life in the case of
27:35 u236 it takes 710 million years for half
27:38 of a sample to turn into lead 207 this
27:40 is based on the Decay rates that we can
27:44 observe today with u238 it takes
27:48 4.47 billion years to turn into lead
27:51 206 by carefully measuring the ratio of
27:56 u236 to lead 207 or u238 to lead 206 you
27:58 can estimate how many many half- lives
28:00 have passed or what percentage of a
28:03 halflife has passed and you can thus
28:05 estimate the ages of samples between 1
28:06 million years old and
28:09 4.5 billion years old there are other
28:11 radioactive elements that we can use to
28:13 check samples outside of this range or
28:15 to corroborate our findings from uranium
28:18 Le dating if multiple techniques all
28:20 reach the same basic conclusion there is
28:23 good reason to accept the age is
28:24 somewhat credible while many
28:26 creationists are skeptical of the
28:28 accuracy of radiometric dating that
28:31 doesn't change the fact that it exists
28:33 and it can be used to date Rock layers
28:34 though it is somewhat expensive and time
28:36 intensive to do so if you notice that
28:38 every time you see shells like these
28:41 like this one here and and you see them
28:43 everywhere the radiometric dates always
28:47 come back to be from the Jurassic well
28:49 after a while whenever you see a shell
28:52 like this what are you going to conclude
28:54 you can date the ample using radiometric
28:57 dating to be sure and if you do from
28:59 what time period do you predict that it
29:01 will be from this is how fossils become
29:04 index fossils you may have your doubts
29:05 about radiometric dating but claiming
29:07 that it isn't used among other
29:09 techniques to establish and verify the
29:12 ages of index fossils is either ignorant
29:14 or just a lie but how do you get a
29:16 fossil fish in the first place look at
29:18 the beautiful state of preservation of
29:21 that fish well here's a fish about to
29:23 have his breakfast doesn't get time to
29:25 swallow it before he's buried and
29:28 fossilized you can't Preserve a fossil
29:30 like that where he's just about to take
29:33 a Chomp and he's Frozen in an instant in
29:34 fact here's another example from a
29:36 museum in Germany that's a marine
29:40 reptile 6 ft long giving birth to a baby
29:42 one minute mother is about to give birth
29:45 to a baby Split Second later she's
29:47 buried in tons and tons of mud
29:50 fossilization had to be catastrophic
29:53 virtually instant and Rapid or these cry
29:55 noids look at the the heads of those
29:58 cids or cities they're Del they have
30:01 been preserved or the wings of this wasp
30:03 how do you fossilize a wasp like that if
30:06 it's not rapidly and catastrophically
30:09 buried okay so this video from aners in
30:11 Genesis documents multiple fossils that
30:14 suggests that the fossilized animals
30:18 were intuned by something catastrophic
30:21 virtually instant and Rapid at the end
30:23 it shows a wasp and asks how do you
30:25 fossilize a wasp like that if it's not
30:28 rapidly and catastroph ically buried and
30:30 and that's a great question probably you
30:32 don't generally when an animal dies it
30:35 is consumed by various scavengers and
30:38 decomposers and as a result never
30:40 becomes a fossil even its bones are
30:42 destroyed by erosion and other forms of
30:45 decomposition to become a fossil It
30:47 generally needs to be buried shortly
30:50 after death or while still alive
30:52 probably an unpleasant way to die but a
30:54 great way to become a fossil this can be
30:56 in sediments at the bottom of the ocean
30:58 lakes or or Rivers it could be in a
31:01 Mudslide or a flood shifting Sands
31:04 volcanic ash from nearby eruptions tar
31:06 pits and Pete bogs are a popular place
31:09 to die and be buried all at once in
31:11 other words there are a lot of
31:13 catastrophic ways to be buried virtually
31:16 instantly and rapidly and that is a
31:18 nearly essential first step in becoming
31:20 a fossil there really isn't any debate
31:23 about that so this is just something
31:25 about which we agree my only issue with
31:26 that video is it does make it seem like
31:29 there some real opposition to this idea
31:30 coming from the mainstream scientific
31:33 community and that's just not the case
31:36 the fact that rapid burial is generally
31:38 necessary for fossilization to occur is
31:40 just a point of agreement that we have
31:42 and maybe the video was just presenting
31:44 the fact that creationists also hold
31:46 that opinion but it didn't sound that
31:49 way to me anyway I hope this was helpful
31:51 would you like to see me do something
31:52 like this again are there any
31:54 creationist arguments that you would
31:56 like to see me address in the future did
31:59 you learn anything from this video I
32:01 hope you did as always like And
32:03 subscribe and we hope to see you real
32:06 soon Clint you said you believe in God I
32:09 did what I know I I'm sure that came as
32:12 a shock to the both of you especially
32:13 given that I met will at [Laughter]
32:26 [Music] church
