Five Hilariously STUPID Science "Proofs" For Creationism (𝔻𝕚𝕟𝕩 𝕥𝕙𝕖 ℙ𝕦𝕡𝕡𝕖𝕥)

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:18]Oh, we've got something before we even start. I would love it if you went into more detail about this. I rarely hear what the science actually is. Well, since this is a video on my channel, I can only assume that when presented with actual science, you ignore it because you think that real science is anything that already agrees with you. Anyway, I suppose it will all depend on who exactly is going to be giving you the science, eh?

[00:00:42]>> You want some science? Sure, I'll give you some science.

[00:00:47]>> Ah, you dinks the puppet is giving someone some science. I'll believe it when I see it, buddy. Same thing with God in pretty much any magical or miracle claim really. And what I mean when I say that is I will literally never believe it because you're not going to demonstrate that. As in you knowing anything about science anyway.

[00:01:07]Talk about your magic ass miracles. Holy hell.

[00:01:10]>> I love science. Here are five things about the universe that point to a creator.

[00:01:16]>> You love science, do you? Damn. I don't think I want to see the way you would treat it if you hated science. Freick me. And five things point to a creator, do they? What's the betting that by point to a creator he means kind of sort of does that if you stretch it way beyond reason to the point that it doesn't resemble anything anymore? And if it is not so abused, it actually ends up pointing to a completely different direction. And that's only for stuff that isn't already complete nonsense.

[00:01:44]>> So first is the finetuning of the universe. Oh god, how many times have we got to teach you this lesson, old puppet? There's so many obvious problems with this one. The main being that you think that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but when you look at it without biblical goggles on and an understanding of how systems work, especially evolution, it's pretty obvious that life is fine-tuned to the universe. What this always ends up skipping is its life as we know it. But it's not impossible that in a universe with a different set of rules, not tuned for life as we know it at all, life could still and probably would still very much emerge in many variations of that state.

[00:02:26]>> Even atheists, ardent atheists, will admit that this is the best evidence that there is a creative mind behind everything.

[00:02:33]>> Really? Who exactly? I see you're not going to bring them up for some reason.

[00:02:37]And it's certainly not Ardan atheists, whatever that means, in general, because, you know, I freaking don't. I don't think it's the best. I don't even think it's good. Hell, I'm not even convinced there is a best argument, so to speak, as it all runs into various massive hurdles that leave them all feeling pretty much equally poor as propositions. I mean, sure, I probably haven't heard absolutely all of them, but a pattern is certainly emerging. And okay, you probably meant some of us think that. Well, then so what? Just because some atheists a doesn't mean we all are. I mean, okay, I am an idiot, but it's not for that specific reason.

[00:03:14]>> The universe's physical laws are so precisely balanced that even the smallest change would make life impossible. As usual, the biggest flaw with this argument beyond it being, you know, really, really dumb, is the fact that you law always hamstring yourself by couching it in terms like small and tiny and essentially make it sound like if there was a fraction of a fraction of a minuscule nothing of a change that the whole universe and life inside of it would come crashing down. But that's simply not true. Like one of the main talented ones is the distance of the Earth from the Sun. Too far, no life.

[00:03:49]Too close, no life, but just right. and we're all good. Except that just right zone is bloody massive and is an area we are essentially zigzagging back and forth across all year round.

[00:04:01]>> The cosmological constant if it were off by even one part in 10 to the 120th power galaxies and thus life could not exist.

[00:04:11]>> Well, aside from the fact that that number is still a number that could be changed even if a minuscule amount, it would still be a difference. But that number is actually an issue with people who understand the science way better than me and infinitely better than you.

[00:04:24]But it more suggests our current models are incomplete rather than there are a god mans. There's also the point that that is a single value and it's entirely possible that the various universal variables are interdependent. So if one changed the others might be forced to compensate opening up the possible ranges for life to exist. And of course, there's the plausibility of multiverses.

[00:04:49]After all, we already exist in one of them, mixed in again with the fact that life doesn't just mean the things that you know of as life, but there could also be many ways for life to live. So, fine-tuning, even if it wasn't also already a loaded term, is not exactly as compelling as your lot seem to think it is.

[00:05:10]DNA contains complex computer-like instructions that seem far too precise to have come about by chance. DNA is not computer code. The only reason that anyone who knows what they're talking about makes that comparison is as a simplified way to explain it in a way that a layman can understand. But it is not how that actually works. I mean, think of it this way. Little kids are taught that you can't subtract large numbers from a smaller one, but then of course are taught negative numbers exist. Or that there are three phases of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. But later you learn several more exist like plasma. Just because a simplified idea is good enough to understand it at a basic level doesn't mean it's actually correct. Oh, and chance. No one says chance. It's natural selection and selection is not chance. And really, if you want to go the whole code metaphor, the fact that much of it is spaghetti code that could be far more streamlined while maintaining as good, if not better, function, but for some reason isn't, well, that would suggest if there is a coder, it's a really, really lazy and incompetent one. The human genome holds over three billion base pairs of ordered information, much like a book or software program. Again, it would be a book that is almost entirely gibberish, except for a few lines that say, "Oh, yeah, and the butler did it." And I know some of them will argue, "Well, actually, the idea of non-oding or junk DNA is actually false because if you remove those apparently non-coding portions, you end up breaking things."

[00:06:46]Which while technically true misses the fact that again with the software analogy that you love so much and helps you so little, programs often contain portions of unused codes for various abandoned features. But they have to keep them because if they don't, it breaks things in the actually functional code because often they are linked in some unknown and entirely unnecessary way but linked nonetheless. yet if coded better would absolutely not be there in the first place. And considering that you think that the coder is perfect, it seems pretty unlikely. Eh, >> and so you can take a little bit of DNA and grow something big out of it.

[00:07:27]>> First off, we don't grow things out of DNA. That is a woefully inaccurate description of how DNA functions. I mean, if you took a bit of DNA, like a portion of it, you probably wouldn't really get anything but a nonfunctional mess. No, DNA is more like an instruction set. So, what you're saying is essentially instruction books are miracles because you can take a little piece of paper and then build a cabinet, but it skips all the material that goes into it. So, less miracle and more how it works. Duh. Not forgetting the fact that even if it was more impressive than a real thing that happens, that wouldn't mean that it wasn't perfectly explicable via natural phenomena. Just because something is cool doesn't mean you get to jump in and shout, "God did it." for absolutely no reason.

[00:08:12]>> In fact, that's how they do cloning.

[00:08:14]>> That's how they do cloning. Do you genuinely think they just have a pile of DNA and then life forms just expand out from that? I mean, one would think that if you knew the most basic about it, like the fact that they use quote unquote empty eggs, etc. You might have mentioned such a concept, but you being you the worst person at knowing things I have ever had the misfortune of interacting with, I can only assume that you didn't. And you'd literally think that DNA is magic. You must be bloody terrified of looking into the bottom of that crusty sock under your bed. God damn.

[00:08:47]>> So, let's talk about Earth's perfect condition.

[00:08:50]>> Oh, no. I'm real sorry to tell you this, but I'm pretty sure I already did a refute of that on accident. It sounds like you're going to do the frankly much weaker version of the teological argument you were doing before, aka the finetuning one. But again, for a system that inhabits much more forgiving spaces that allow for pretty wild variations.

[00:09:10]Yeah, that's not somehow a better version, mate. Oopsy daisy.

[00:09:15]>> Earth has just the right location, atmosphere, and conditions to support life.

[00:09:21]>> Again, again, no, it doesn't. Those just right conditions are super broad to the point where there are a ton of other planets in our galaxy alone that have pretty much all the requirements for the types of life that we have here on Earth to be able to form. And again, that could very much be even broader if hardier life forms can exist. When considering the existence of extreophiles on Earth already, it's likely that even in non ideal conditions, life could form as well, making the whole concept of Earth am so special as a narrative, naive at best, and downright narcissistic otherwise.

[00:09:58]>> Something incredibly rare. We have yet to find another planet like it.

[00:10:03]>> Utter nonsense and completely unsurprising coming out of your mouth.

[00:10:07]We haven't just found one or two planets like it, but depending on exactly how like you want to go, we are at least looking at thousands that have been found with estimates of hundreds of millions to billions of such planets existing just in our galaxy alone. And even if that was at the lower end, that is not only not unique, but seemingly a downright common occurrence. But throw in the fact that planet and star formation is still occurring. That means many more could exist in the future, too. Seriously, did you get your science education from the contents of that same crusty sock? Nah, you know what?

[00:10:46]Thinking about it, it seems pretty unlikely. I'm fairly sure that sock is way too smart for you to keep up. We found planets of similar size or composition and some that might even have an atmosphere like Venus, but none of them are capable of supporting life.

[00:11:02]Holy balls. I was listening to that at first and thinking, "Oh, good. My hyperbolic teasing wasn't just me underestimating his knowledge for comic effect." And then it got so much worse.

[00:11:15]He is so much more catastrophically ignorant than even I didn't give him credit for. He thinks that similar planets we have found are the ones in our pissing solar system. How? How could a person be this dumb and actually exist in the universe and not form some kind of intelligence void in time and space causing anyone within thousands of miles of radius to collapse to the floor because they forgot how their legs work at the same time. When I have been calling him the dumbest theist ever recently, I'm not exaggerating. I truly think he might actually be the dumbest one. We found him, guys.

[00:11:54]>> It orbits in what's called the Goldilock zone, which is just right, not too far and not too close from the sun. And the sun is the right type of star so that we don't get cooked or irradiated.

[00:12:06]>> And wouldn't that just be a frigin shame? Also zone. It's not called the Goldilocks line or the Goldilocks exact position. Nothing else or we all die in horrible screaming agony. It's a zone, a space, and frankly a big one at that.

[00:12:20]Not to mention, he's also missed the concept of if life were to form in a universe, would you expected to form a absolutely everywhere regardless of supporting pillars? B only or at least mostly to form in places with all the supporting pillars, or C form only in places without life supporting features.

[00:12:40]If you picked A or C, well done. Those are the ones that actually would be evidence for any kind of god because they could make life exist wherever the hell they wanted instead of only ever in places where it's actually possible. How very all powerful of them. It also has a magnetic field to protect us from excess radiation from the sun. It has liquid water and a moon that stabilizes the tilt. All of which are finely balanced.

[00:13:07]Aside from the fact that water is a universally fairly common thing and Earth's magnetic field, while extremely fortunate, is simply a byproduct of its structure, not a miracle. The simple fact is systems fall into balance. That is what they do. They don't need someone to do that for them because physics will always make it happen. If you want to say that a system is proof for God, you have to present one functioning outside of the system it would otherwise inhabit. For example, if the Earth were in an orbit that constantly led way outside the Goldie boy land, but some inexplicable force keeps moving it back in for no reason whatsoever, that might be proof of God. But when our system balances out like the Earth and the Moon have, again, the only time where that wouldn't be exactly what you would expect is if both the moon rocketed off in a random direction away from us forever, but also its function somehow remained completely intact. That would in fact be a godamn miracle.

[00:14:10]>> Now, another one is human consciousness.

[00:14:13]The sheer irony of you dings not being able to pronounce human consciousness is so absolutely beautiful that I might even give you that that could be evidence of some kind of god. Just one that is a bit of a funny bastard who makes the people who try to prove him with stupidity look as dumb as they absolutely are. Our ability to think, feel, and be self-aware that cannot be be explained by scientific processes.

[00:14:39]>> Yes, it absolutely can. The fact that you haven't heard of the explanations, Mr. Science lover man, doesn't mean that they don't exist. And the fact that at no point it occurred to you to check is a damning condemnation on both your lack of intellectual curiosity and your utter inability to do the most basic of research. Consciousness is rather simply explained as a consequence of neurological complexity. It's rather obvious seeing as when you look out into the animal kingdom, as a general rule, the bigger the brain, the more the appearance of consciousness is expressed to the point where most largebrained animals tend to express many recognizable humanlike emotions. Now, it's not 100% correlated. Certain bird species appear to have similar expressive capabilities, but they often have very densely packed neurons. But even so, the fact that any animal appears to show these kinds of consciousness adjacent properties certainly debunks the notion that it is somehow a human exclusive phenomena and that it of course does not exist in theist puppets or their operators. Then we have the irreducible complexity. O more like irreducible stupidity, am I right? So some biological systems like bacterial flagagulum all need all of their parts in order to work suggesting they could not have been developed step by step. That's just you not understanding that they've always had all the parts they needed for whatever function it was used for at that time.

[00:16:12]If it fulfilled a different function, it might not have needed certain parts. If it fulfilled the same function but less efficiently, then a functional but non ideal component would have been in that place that eventually will have evolved into its leveled up form. The fact is irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance. It fails to conceive of a form or function that doesn't require perfection as many forms do not. The eye is one that always comes up as an example. But the simple fact is people literally exist with color blindness.

[00:16:44]And not only are they generally absolutely fine if prone to tasteless evening wear, the simple fact that they were actually used during wartime to spot camouflage targets because what appeared completely invisible to a typically sighted person was a glaring beacon to them and demonstrated that fit is always based on the needs of the moment, not the theoretical best version of whatever thing. It's kind of like the idea of procreation.

[00:17:14]Which developed first, the male parts or the female parts?

[00:17:17]>> Well, you're obviously a bit of a male part yourself, but they developed, and get this right, at the same time, more or less, because the way they would have produced offspring to begin with wouldn't have involved them at all.

[00:17:28]Sexual dimmorphism is an adaptation that came a lot later, lol. Most early species would have reproduced either hermaphroditically, that is to say, two beings having both sets of sex organs being able to crossbreed with one another, or they would have reproduced asexually, aka they could go themselves.

[00:17:50]Something I am sure you have had shouted at you a lot more times than, "Wow, that was a really clever thing to say, Dinks.

[00:17:58]Bye.

[00:18:01]Heat. Heat.

[00:18:36]Heat.