Dr. Dan Cardinale provides a sharp, evidence-based rebuttal to creationist myths by grounding complex biological and geological data in clear, empirical facts. This video is a vital exercise in scientific literacy that effectively dismantles pseudoscientific claims with precision.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Creation "MIS" - Ms.Interpretations Show w/ Dr. Dan from @CreationMythsAdded:
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Hey everybody, welcome to Misinterpretations. My name is Myriam and this is my virtual campfire. And today we have Dr. Dan from Creation Myths.
Uh will you tell me how to pronounce your last name cuz I'm not sure I said it properly.
>> It is Stern Cardinal, which is using a hyphen. Stern Cardinal, two words, no hyphen.
Yeah. Okay, so I'll go back and fix the uh >> [laughter] >> go back and fix the description.
Um Stern Cardinal, excellent, very good.
Now I will always know. Well, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate you being here tonight and uh it's always fun to talk about this science and my favorite part, science and religion. So, here we are.
Um I started off my lives back in August. The very first live I did was with Ember and we did the first episode from the series that we're going to talk about tonight. And then uh I didn't I haven't gotten back to it until now. So, uh this this is going to be but it's going to be fun. It's going to be awesome. So, I'm very >> It's it's going to be terrible. It's going to be awful.
It's going I can tell already. I appreciate you uh sacrificing some of your some of your peace um uh to do this and I I am as well though. So, at least you know, you can um you know, we can share in the Oh, yeah. in the in the pain.
>> [laughter] >> Mhm, absolutely. So, We get to we get to experience this together.
Yeah, and I I don't often do this but I do enjoy it >> [laughter] >> to to critique um mm bad science but um you know, Maya is the master of that on on bad science Sunday. So, I always enjoy uh that. So, uh okay. So, this is the I guess we can could I forgot. I was talking about Maya and can you tell us a little bit about yourself, please? Of course. My name is Dan. I'm an evolutionary biologist and I'm a full-time college teacher right now. I teach lots of different subjects uh to hundreds and hundreds of undergrads and it's wonderful. And um but my background is evolutionary biology, virus evolution, genetics, all that stuff. And uh for about my goodness, almost 6 years now I've been doing YouTube. My channel is Creation Myths and I look at the the like science-y claims from creationism, mostly having to do with genetics and evolution um and try to explain in kind of clear language why they're wrong uh in a way where you don't need to have a background in genetics or evolution to understand why they're wrong. And um let me tell you they're wrong for every imaginable reason and some that I didn't imagine every time.
And so, I'm excited to see more of that tonight.
Yeah, so so the name of the series is called The Creator Revealed and I think that the creator that's being revealed are the scientists creating new ideas and making stuff >> [laughter] >> So, we'll we'll we'll see. So, um Dr. Kent I I understand but he's not an astrophysicist.
He's he's as much of an astrophysicist as you are New Testament scholar. So, so you know, let it let it go.
It's always something. Um I'm not playing guitar, by the way. Um that's my friend Mike. He's the guitarist in our band. So, um anyway, the intro music is mine. Um There was one thing I was going to tell you. Oh, I would I didn't get a chance to tell you that um I studied with Mel Connor at Emory. Um he was the reader on my master's thesis and he evolutionary biology is, you know, like was his thing. He wrote the book The Tangled Wing and uh and lot lots of other lots of other works but um Childhood is one of his books. But yeah, so I really I really enjoyed working with him. So, I I and I took a couple of his classes as a master student in theological studies but I wrote a cross-cultural um analysis or a cross-cultural kind of comparison of infanticide. So, that's was my uh my master's thesis there. So, there we go.
It's been a minute but I did it.
I really So, I love um anthropology and evolutionary biology. So, Nice.
>> but I just tinker. So, I'm happy that you're here. Okay, we let's why don't we just try this? We're going to dive in.
>> Now, as I told you, I wanted to say for everybody watching, I was irresponsible.
I did not do a comprehensive review of this video prior to now. I did when we arranged this weeks ago, a month ago, whenever we arranged this, I did like kind of skip through and peruse what they were saying. I remember there's some geology in there, which is not my field, and then there's some genetics in there, which absolutely is. So, The geology is not their field either. So, we will see that um pretty clearly and I mean I taught high high school biology and I know they're not saying the right stuff.
>> That is a creationist thing. They don't talk about their own field. I've got, you know, you look at um Discovery Institute is like my favorite example of this where they have multiple biologists on staff but the person who writes all of their biology stuff is Casey Luskin who's a lawyer and geologist.
He does all their genetics stuff, not like any of their actual biologists, you know. And you got McLatchie doing whatever McLatchie's doing. He actually has a degree in evolutionary biology.
Doesn't talk about it. Talks about other So, yeah. That is a thing.
It is a thing. Well, we're going to talk about stuff that we know about. How about that?
Let's do it.
>> Okay, so we're going to try this.
And uh as far as sound goes, uh Tommy, you're my sound guy. Um as yeah, you're here so we can start now.
>> [laughter] >> Um we turned down our microphones a little bit because I think the video is a little bit quiet. So, let us know if it's balanced. Y'all turn up your volume.
We'll see what happens. So, we'll do a little bit of the intro cuz it's kind of pretty.
Here we go.
Probably.
See, it's quiet.
Isn't that pretty?
Okay, can you hear it?
Yeah, okay. Can I hear you?
Can you hear me? Yeah, okay. Just making sure >> [laughter] >> we interrupt it. All right, I can't run it from in here though. Okay. All right, cool. Let's get So, very nice, great production value. I will I will compliment that at least.
Welcome to The Creator Revealed.
I'm Tim Standish. I'm a scientist.
But I'm also a Christian and there really shouldn't be a but in there. So, of course, scientists can and in fact should be Christians.
That means that I believe the biblical record of history. Amen. Amen. Well, we are just very excited that you're with us and we are very excited that those of you at home or in your car, whether you're watching by TV or internet, we thank you so much.
I forgot that I can only I can only listen to this on one and at at 1.5 but I'm not sure if I have that option. Where is the I have to go out of this.
Sorry.
>> [laughter] >> The Where is the option? Can I do it? I maybe not be able to do it. Has anybody ever played anything on StreamYard?
>> StreamYard, okay. Okay. Oh, here we go.
>> I don't know how to do it. Yeah. There we go.
Yep.
>> Cool. Really, I mean seriously, I'm going to be pulling my hair out.
>> [laughter] >> for joining us.
And this is to me, I'm so excited because creation science is something that many people have their views have changed a little over the years and we see Christians who are kind of amalgamating almost, I don't know if that's the proper word, but they're they're taking evolution and they're taking a little from the Bible and they're doing this and that and coming up with all kinds of ideas. So, I'm excited about this series. What are we going to talk about today?
>> Well, we're going to talk about evidence. Remember that science is all about empirical evidence and occasionally I actually quite commonly I hear what seems to me to be a ridiculous statement, which is there is no evidence for a recent creation. We're going to disprove that today.
>> Well, we're going to look at some evidence, that's for sure. And and and obviously each person has to draw their own conclusions, but I will tell you that again, this is from my perspective as a scientist, actually there is abundant evidence of the recent creation of life. Now, I'm concentrating on life because I'm a biologist, life is what I study. I'm not a geologist, so I won't try to go too far down that way, but I will compare Thank you. what geologists and what the biological evidence say.
All right, so I So, any comments so far? I'm sorry it's quiet. Y'all going to have to to turn up your and I'll will and if we need to turn us down so you can turn your volume up, let me know, but that's as loud as I could get it.
So, Dr. Dan, what do you think?
There I'm just going to say there is no evidence for a young Earth and recent creation. There just isn't. There just isn't. It's that simple.
Genetics, geology, there isn't.
There's So, I'm excited to see what he claims is.
I know. Well, the first example is actually going to be geology even though he says that's not >> [laughter] >> even though he says that's not his area.
Yeah.
>> do what my my geology friends have been teaching me. So, let's see if I've observed >> Oh, nice. Okay. Here we go. Let's start off with a Bible text and this is Isaiah, which is one of my favorite books. By the way, a book that is full of the creation interestingly enough, the creation and the new creation that God's promised. So, Isaiah wrote this.
He said, "Lift up your eyes to the heavens. Look at the Earth beneath. The heavens will vanish like smoke. The Earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies, but my salvation will last forever. My righteousness will never fail." Amen.
God makes this incredible promise here to us. Yes, the Earth is old. Um now, that doesn't mean that life is millions or hundreds of millions of years old or billions of years old or even according to to some people, but thousands of years old is a long time and none of us can go back. Probably none of us can genuinely figure out the exact date on which God started the creation.
Is thousands of years a long time?
Not geologically.
I was just wondering. [laughter] Nope. We get these dates by via calculations that have some error in them. But what is obvious but by looking at genealogies in the Old Testament and also by looking at genealogies in the New Testament because we have the genealogy of Jesus Christ and we know how many people there were from Adam to Jesus. By looking at those things, we can know with a reasonable degree of assurance that life is thousands of years, not millions of years old. That's data. That's a real record of reality.
Okay, pause.
>> [laughter] >> Pause.
It's a record of reality. Can we just appreciate that he goes, "We're going to talk about evidence." And that the first thing that he brings up as evidence is not Old Testament biblical genealogies, which is where a lot of Christians will go, the New Testament genealogies is the first piece of evidence that he's bringing for a young life on Earth. I don't know if he's It sounds like he might be an old Earth young life guy, which is a weird combo, but so far >> Yeah, so far it's just life and man, let me tell you that's not evidence recent creation of life. Come on.
Yeah.
Yeah, so this is and there's there's two genealogies in the New Testament and and there's a couple of discrepancies with them. So, we're like which which genealogy >> a historical document.
Not exactly.
Not a scientific document, but that's okay.
Let's let's let's see.
Okay.
We see when we look at the creation.
Now, let's start off by talking about clocks because we all know that there isn't a clock out there on palm trees or on human beings or on anything else.
There isn't an actual clock, but there are things that act like clocks.
But sometimes those clocks give two different times. I don't know if you if you've ever seen a clock tower like this with the faces with different times on them, but that's that is sort of the situation that we sometimes see with science. Now, remember we're interpreting data to come up with the same with the times that are being estimated.
So, let's start off here. This is my actually one of my favorite places. It's south of Sydney in Australia, a place called Coalcliff and you can see why.
Can you see that that beautiful line of coal there? This is why Australia is the Saudi Arabia of coal. There's huge amounts of coal there in this in this basin around Sydney.
And here's the thing.
Do you see what a straight line that is between the coal and the and the sandstone that's on top of it?
When you do something called radiometric dating, what you find out is that supposedly there was 5 million years that that coal was on top of the Earth and then the sandstone came along and piled up on top of it. So, what I want you to think about that a little bit.
What do you think would happen if that coal >> Okay, pause.
Pause. [laughter] Pause.
Coal I'm not a geologist, but even I know that coal doesn't form on the surface.
That coal was not sitting there. On top of the Earth for 5 million 5 million years before it got covered up.
Goodness.
That coal was not sitting exposed for 5 million years before it got covered up by the sandstone, which I believe is a sedimentary rock. So, like that's going to take time to deposit and compress and solidify. And that it just This man is apparently trained as biologist.
I It's a geology thing, but I've picked up enough over the years to know that coal does not form on the surface of the Earth.
It does not.
Uh it it does not.
>> [laughter] >> I taught Earth science one year.
High school. Right.
>> For all the students who hated all the science. So, yeah. It just But wait till you hear how he how the coal how the coal Let's let's let's listen to how the how the coal lived up there.
>> in the By the way, in the private chat I put the link for the bingo cards I've made cuz this guy's already hit a couple points there. So, if you want to put that in the chat on YouTube so people can play bingo if they want. Oh my goodness. Yeah, I definitely Look at this.
All righty. Yeah, okay.
>> be a link to a to bingo cards. Feel free to pop in and play bingo.
>> this one. It's okay.
>> [laughter] >> All right, did I copy that? Okay.
Bingo, that's all. Now, I don't know how to pin it. Maybe after I put it in here, I can pin it.
>> you put it in and then you can you can hit the little thing and then pin it.
Okay. So, folks, feel free to play along because let me tell you he's already hit a couple He's already hit a couple squares in there. Oh, maybe I have to do it.
I have to do it over here.
Okay.
Pin.
There you go. Okay.
Nice. Let me pull that up. That's helpful.
>> Thank you so much. That's awesome. We'll say bingo cards and or drinking game, whatever your preference.
That's fun.
>> [laughter] >> Play responsibly.
Uh okay, so now what is there somebody that needs to actually call it or I guess you just Oh, it's perfect. Okay.
>> you know, everyone will get a card and as we go, people can you know, call out their bingos.
Got you. Okay, so coal apparently was on the crust of the Earth for 5 million years before this sedimentary rock piled up on top of it. Let's let's hear more about it. It's really fascinating.
>> care about it for 5 million years.
>> [laughter] >> I mean to argue this. Well, you would expect some kind of erosion maybe or some kind of or maybe the coal would get lit on fire. Maybe it'd be struck by lightning. Maybe it was underwater so it didn't burn, but if it was underwater then you'd expect erosion or something.
And then you've got to dump all of this coal this this sorry, this sand on top of it to make the sandstone.
Really, 5 million years?
What the evidence is most reasonably interpreted as there as meaning is actually very little time at all.
Okay, so because there's no erosion and the coal is still there. You can't leave coal sitting out on the Earth's surface for 5 million years. Yes. So, there's a kind of logic here. We're looking at two different clocks and they're telling us different times at this place called Coalcliff. First of all, there's that radiometric clock and that says 5 million years, but the flat interface between the layers says a short period of time. We've got two two clocks telling us two different periods of time and these flat gaps in time that we see there, they're actually quite common. There are there are you can see them for example in the Grand Canyon here in the United States where there are millions of years missing there also between layers and yet it's absolutely flat. No erosion, no indication that there was actually any time there.
I I don't know the word paraconformity.
Are you familiar with that?
>> It's so so my geology friends are going to be mad at me that I don't know exactly what the response to that is, but here's what I do know is that these rocks that he's pointing to that formed very quickly actually take a lot of time to form.
And they don't form you You do like Kent Hovind loves to do the like, "Look, I turned the thing full of sands and it made the layers when it and the that's not sandstone, that's not sedimentary rock, right? Converting sediment into sedimentary rock takes a lot of time.
And so given the thickness of the sedimentary layers, you know that it didn't happen in however many thousand years this guy wants to say it happened.
And also thank you chat for knowing more geology than I do. There's also angular unconformities. Uh there's yeah. Um flat layers are not uncommon including in layers where um like we we I just Yeah, okay. So anyway I need to follow up on that. Okay, anyway.
>> guy is clearly lying to me, but I'm already at that point.
A paraconformity is a type of geological unconformity where the sedimentary strata above and below an erosional boundary are parallel.
Is coal an erosional boundary?
I think the boundary would be the layer between them. I don't know. I'm not geologist.
It seems to me like it's it's a Okay, anyway.
Oh yeah, okay. Well, it's okay. Fine.
>> My simple answer to that is the rocks that he's saying are young take too long to form to be the age he's saying they are.
Yeah, and well, I don't think he said carbon dating Josh. I think he said radiometric dating.
>> Yeah, so it's and some other nuclear dating.
Uh >> didn't say which kind. Yeah, yeah. So that >> drops the If he drops the carbon dating in coal, that one I know. That one I can deal with.
Yeah, yeah. So I So that makes that makes sense. So uh the coal formed below layers over the top. Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, okay. Yeah, okay. This makes So it's it's like if you've got Well, I mean he even discusses the fact that it's organic matter that makes the coal.
Would that >> But you can't make organic matter into coal without significant pressure.
No, it forms on the surface.
>> of rock that are lying on top.
[laughter] Apparently it forms on the surface.
Wait, did we not learn this in ninth grade? I mean, I'm sorry.
Again, not a geologist. I know that coal doesn't form on the surface. Nope. Nope.
Okay, let's go on.
coal paraconformities. And as I said, they they show up all over the place. Uh the paraconformity visible at Coalcliff covers about 97,000 square miles. That's an incredible area.
Absolutely flat.
There are simply no places on Earth that are like that today. 97,000 square miles of flatness of flat coal. This is obviously something different than we see today and well interpreted as a short period of time. Now, I count this as a biological evidence because coal came from plants. So let's look at another thing. Here's Here's our coal again. This is just looking at the same coal from a different angle. And when we when we look at that coal frequently you find carbon-14 in coal.
Now you've all heard that carbon-14 means long ages, but that's actually not really true.
Yeah, this is where carbon dating comes from. The most ancient carbon-14 dates that you can possibly get are around 100,000 years. There are some variables in there. Generally less than that and a lot less. So because the carbon-14 breaks down very fast, you simply it's it's a fast running clock and the time runs out after a while. So if carbon-14 is measured in a coal sample, it either had the carbon-14 put into it or it's less than 100,000 years old. Now remember that coal that you were looking at there is supposed to be millions of years old. There should be no carbon-14 there. And this is something that has been done many times in in in in a number of different types of coal. So here is another line of evidence.
Okay, hold on. All right, let's do the coal. Let's do the carbon-14 thing.
Right, but he but but If >> But we're not No one ever said there was carbon-14 in that coal. Uh well, I'm sure >> I'm sure they've tried to get samples tested that have like that they know were, you know, too old or not appropriate for carbon-14 dating. And I have um just over there I have a postal scale uh for when I send packages just so I can weigh them before I go to the post office so I can you know the label so I get the right postage because I have to know how much that postal that that package weighs before I go to the post office, right? So I get the right postage.
That postal scale goes up to I think 18 oz is the maximum weight that I can measure on that postal scale. If I put something on that postal scale that weighs 18 oz, it tells me it weighs 18 oz. If I put something that weighs 50 lb on that postal scale it tells me it weighs 18 oz. Yeah, okay. That's what we're doing when we're measuring carbon-14 in anything beyond about 60,000 years. The date is completely invalid because it's beyond the range of the tool you're using to measure it. And basically you're picking up the background sensitivity of the instrument itself.
And there's a famous study that creationists point to um specifically looking at carbon-14 in diamonds. And they're saying, "Oh, these diamonds they had to form underground at great pressure and it takes a long time and yada yada yada." But when you test them they have carbon-14 in them.
And the study that they cite, this is one of the most amazing pieces of dishonesty of just straight up misrepresenting a study. The study that creationists cite to say there's carbon-14 in diamonds is a study calibrating the instrumentation and they're using the diamonds as a blank because there can be no actual carbon-14 in them.
Oh my gosh.
That's hysterical. That is so dishonest.
When you were talking I was I was thinking there was a Russian I think there was a like a Russian study that also did carbon-14 dating on things that >> 21 lab or whatever. Yeah, I think so.
Yeah, I forget what it was. Yeah, it was like It's been like 2 years since I looked at that reference.
>> yeah, it was it was the Proton I think it was the Proton 21. I want to say it was Proton with a number. I think it was the Proton 21 lab and it was just like in somebody's apartment or something. Like it was totally like fake basically. It's Yeah, but trying to to measure carbon-14 in things that that right that wouldn't you wouldn't find it and so >> you just can't do it. be finding them the the back It's the background radiation that right.
The background noise right of the of the instrument. It's fascinating.
>> It's silly.
Okay, let's see that Kev says the only carbon-14 data that creationists love are the new test [laughter] performed on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Yeah, that tracks. Yeah. Oh yeah, yeah.
lot of molecules that have been found associated with fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old.
And the question is how long do proteins last?
Do they last hundreds of years? If if you put a you know, a a piece of steak outside, how long does it last? Not very long. Now, a lot of that's because bacteria will come along and speed things up and and some animal might come and eat them. So we know that today it will disappear very rapidly. But even if you don't have animals or other organisms breaking down these molecules, you have water that breaks them. You have They just oxidize spontaneously and other chemical reactions degrade them and they can be physically broken as well and radiation. Radiation is something that you simply can't get away from and it breaks things down. So this this exact skeleton here from this exact skeleton they have found proteins, uh whole blood vessels and things Okay, yeah, that's a lie. Not blood vessels.
No. Nope. That's just a lie. Yeah. If we had isolated intact proteins from a I can't tell exactly what species that is, but some kind of Tyrannosaur. If we had iso- Oh, it says T-Rex right there. If we had isolated proteins from a T-Rex, one of the first things we would do is crystallography and sequencing. And we'd actually have in our molecular databases the T-Rex proteins and you better believe we'd have comparisons to everything else.
And we'd know like what's the sequence of whatever protein from a T-Rex and we'd compare it to everything else we'd have and we'd drop the T-Rex on our phylogenetic trees with everything else.
And we haven't done that because we don't actually have intact proteins from the T-Rex. We have the degraded byproducts of some very robust proteins like collagen.
Yeah.
There who Okay, somebody knows the name of the I guess it's archaeologist.
What's archaeology with living things?
Why am I blanking out?
>> Paleontology? Paleontology.
Uh who who um found what could be like remnants of of blood vessels, but the reddish looking color is actually iron deposits. So that's what makes that, but I can't think of the name of her Apologia has >> It was uh Mary Schweitzer? Yes, Mary Schweitzer. And she cannot stand when um when Christians take her work and misrepresent it. Yep, she is very unhappy with young ear- with young earth creationists. Yes. Yep.
Yep, it's not good. But okay, they're they're going to they're going to fuss with this for a while.
The bones of this particular dinosaur here. The idea that those would have lasted for 60 something million years is very optimistic. Let's put it that way.
Very optimistic. Reasonably, these are explained as telling us that these dinosaurs did not live that long ago.
And there have been scientific papers published about this. It's It's not something that is fringe science. One more thing. Let's go through it really quickly. Yeah. Before we move on to the one more thing. Yes. Yeah. Before we move on to the one more thing, um it it he's right about something in that we have found like biological remnants from very old uh specimens. And it's not fringe science. It's uh for a while people were fairly skeptical of Schweitzer's work because it was um other people had difficulty replicating it. But just in the last decade or so, other teams have had success isolating similar molecules. And that's really awesome. And now we're where people are proposing and demonstrating preservation methods for this stuff, which is really cool. But creationists tend to misrepresent these findings rather than present them uh in terms that are uh realistic. And you could take half a loaf. Like you could see the creationist taking half a loaf. Yeah.
>> And saying like, "Look, we've got these uh remnants, these biomarkers of it was this protein that broke down. And turns out it broke down either way slower than we thought it could. And there must be some unknown preservation method, or it's much younger." But instead, they're taking those like very cool findings of these remnants of things like collagen and saying, "Look, we found intact blood vessels. We found intact hemoglobin."
And like none of that is true. It's not true.
>> And And Dr. Joel Duff, for anyone who doesn't know Dr. Duff, he has a series on this called the hemoglobin challenge.
Where he just when creationists misrepresent studies on this, he points it out. And there are creationists that are actually realistic about this. There's a guy um I want to say it was Dr. I want to say Brian Thomas. I apologize if I get his name wrong, but he's with ICR.
Institute for Creation Research. And he actually published a paper, I think it was last year, that was like a legit peer-reviewed paper. And it was this this paleo, whatever you would call it, where it's looking at biological molecules from very ancient paleo paleoontological samples.
And um it was a perfectly good reasonable paper. And the chemistry in the paper is very cool. But one thing they didn't say in the paper is we found hemoglobin. We found red blood cells. We found intact proteins. Because that's not what they found. And you can spout off and say whatever you want on your blog or on YouTube or whatever. But when you're going through peer review, you have to stick to what you can actually defend. And when they say things that they have to actually defend, it sounds basically like what Mary Schweitzer says. It's the remnants of biological material that's broken down, but it's been preserved more than we expected. So we're looking for a mechanism for how it preserved. Like Yeah.
>> Which is cool. That's awesome. And I want to know more. And I hope eventually we can extract some sequence data from it. That would be great. But it's not what creationists claim it is. Just straight up.
Exactly. Exactly. And this is this is the question. This is basically the question. Basic.
Which scientific paper is claiming that Say again?
I said and the answer is none of them.
None, right? Which one is claiming dinosaurs existed recently? Like Right? And he he did throw up for a second a a um a scientific paper, but I mean it was just a flash. And when he said scientific paper, and then he went on to the next thing. So yeah. Yeah. Who Yeah. Who >> Giant red flag when they do that, by the way. Giant red flag. If it's just like, "Here's a paper." And it's gone, giant red flag.
Yes.
Yes, I could list a a lot of uh a lot of creators that do that very thing.
But we're going to talk about these tonight. Um Yeah, okay. This is cute. This is funny.
>> [laughter] >> Creationists acting like they found a blood bag labeled T-Rex next to Moses's skeleton holding a Bible.
>> [laughter] >> Uh that's awesome.
Okay. Now we're going on to your your your neck of the woods here. Let's do that.
>> go. You're going to love it. You're going to love it.
>> random [clears throat] changes in DNA sequences.
Most of these changes have a very small impact, thankfully. Or we'd all be dead.
And you're going to see why in just a moment. Let's imagine that we have a wife and a husband, and they have a whole bunch of children. In fact, they have 10 children. And let's just imagine that there is a very low mutation rate.
1.1, I'm sorry, per per 0.1 mutations per individual per generation. That would mean that one of their children had a mutation. Now you think, "Okay, natural selection can get rid of that child, and the rest of them will be perfectly fine."
One mutation.
I mean, he's already said several wrong things already, but we'll just cover them all at once. But I mean, yeah.
This is for folks who who can see what's got Like this is going to be genetic entropy is where we're going here. And he's going to use the um Yeah. uh the thing where you need to have a bajillion children all at once in order to not go extinct kind of thing. It's That's where we're going with this. And it's all wrong.
Let's watch him do it first. Okay. Okay.
Cool.
But what would happen if you had a higher mutation rate? Let's say 0.5 mutations per generation. Well, that would mean five out of the 10, half of them, would not survive if natural selection selected them out. But you'd still have five, so you'd be fine. But what if you had one mutation per individual per generation? It wouldn't exactly be like this, but we're just illustrating something here. That would in this example mean absolutely all of your children had mutations, and natural selection would not be capable of getting rid of them.
So what is the actual human mutation rate?
And is it is it one mutation per individual per generation? 0.1 mutations >> per generation. We know. There are lots of estimates about this. But generally speaking, they're well over 100 mutations per individual per generation.
The The point is this. Human beings are incapable of even having enough babies to get rid of all of these mutations. So natural selection is not only improbable, it sounds impossible.
>> Well, natural selection isn't going to fix this problem. Yeah. We are going to accumulate mutations. Now, thankfully, our bodies are so robust that we can survive a whole bunch of mutations. But the question then becomes, how many mutations can we survive? At what point are we going to to to die because we simply our our our our genomes are worn out?
And truthfully, we don't know exactly. But we can be pretty sure that it isn't millions of years. Yes.
>> In fact, it's pretty remarkable that we're able to survive thousands of years. Which sounds pretty optimistic or pretty pessimistic when you think about it. We're all doomed. Except for one thing. God's salvation >> We read the back of the book.
>> Exactly. God's salvation is eternal. And so what does this evidence, all of this evidence that we've seen about a recent creation tell us?
>> go.
Okay. So that was genetic entropy is the argument he's making. He didn't say the words genetic entropy, but that's what we're doing. It's genetic entropy.
So genetic entropy is the idea that so many mutations accumulate each generation, and uh virtually all mutations are harmful, but the amount of harm they do is so little that you can't select them. So they accumulate and accumulate and accumulate until the population goes extinct. This is the idea of genetic entropy. It comes from a creationist plant geneticist named Dr. John Sanford. He published a book in 2005. Um the short version is that I like to call uh and I should I should note before I go into this, like now we are talking not just in my fields, but we are talking about my specialty. This is part of my doctoral dissertation was on mutation accumulation leading to extinction in populations. This is my specific thing uh that I have done.
And uh I like to call this genetic entropy population genetics fan fiction.
Because there is nothing about it that makes any sense in the context of like what we know about how population genetics works, right? Uh first of all, when they they they use this phrase, "Most mutations are near neutral."
Meaning they're harmful, but you can't select against them. That's an oxymoron.
Because when we're describing something as harmful or beneficial, you're describing mathematically its effect on something called the coefficient of select Like what's the selection coefficient associated with that mutation? Does it help you reproduce, or does it harm your reproductive output?
If that number is zero, it's neutral. It doesn't have an effect. And that's what most mutations are.
So like right off the bat, the second problem is this idea that you're accumulating these mutations each generation, and they're building up ratchet-like, and we can't get rid of them, so eventually we're all going to die. There have been multiple papers showing that this is wrong. Like you can you can do One of my favorite papers is a paper looking at viruses, where they tried to drive the viruses to extinction by treating them with a mutagen.
Now if genetic entropy is correct, and you start from this like you know, good baseline in your genome, and the vast majority of mutations hurt you.
If you saturate a population with mutations, meaning every possible mutation is present in that population, it has to go extinct.
Like just mathematically.
>> According to their theory, right.
>> According Well, just even just math.
Like if they are correct about the effects of mutations, and a population has within its individuals every possible mutation that could occur, then that population must necessarily go extinct, right? Its fitness can never increase.
In this experiment, the viruses not only went extinct, their maximum fitness went up.
Meaning they found beneficial mutations that actually made them replicate better than the ancestral genotype.
Which is impossible according to genetic entropy.
Uh now that's a paper about viruses, but you can do that same math on mice because mice have about the same size genome and about the same size mutation rate as humans, but their generation time is much shorter. So, you could have multiple mouse generations per year instead of one generation every 20 years. So, if you take the math that they claim to be able to do for humans and say, "Oh, after this much time we're going to go extinct, yada yada."
And you take all that stuff and you just apply it to mice, mice should be extinct by now.
Even if you say mice only poofed into existence 6,000 years ago or two mice got off the ark 4,500 years ago. Those mice should be extinct by now due to genetic entropy.
And yet here we are, obviously mice are doing just fine.
Yeah.
>> Like It's not more complicated than that. You can just say, "If your math is correct, mice shouldn't exist." And then say, "Look, explain Show me the math. Explain to me how humans are going extinct, like imminently threatened by extinction from this, but mice are totally fine." Like, "Show me that math. Show me how that works." And they can't.
>> Yeah.
Yeah. The the the very idea that most mutations that occur in the human human genome during reproduction are neutral is just like it's it's almost like you can say this to some some of these creationists and they it's it's like they just it they just can't even hear that sentence.
>> Yeah.
I mean they just completely ignore that.
And it's something that we can empirically demonstrate. So, you can actually look at a population, document the mutations that occur, and you can build what's called a distribution of fitness effects and plot like the effects of each mutation on fitness and show that like in that book from 2005, um he actually has Sanford actually has a what's called DFE, a distribution of fitness effects. It's literally made up.
It's from it's based on something from a 1979 paper where the author was like, "Here's the distribution I'm going to use for purposes of my calculations.
It's wrong for XYZ reasons, but if I don't do it this way, I can't talk about this other thing." Right? So, he basically said, "I'm not going to include beneficial mutations because if I do, they swamp the effects and I I can't show this other thing that I want to show with neutral mutations." And so, this author in 2005 then took that distribution and used that as the basis for his calculations, but made it worse.
And it was like literally made up to illustrate the absence of beneficial mutations, and then he's taking it to say beneficial mutations don't exist, therefore we're going to go extinct, therefore we got >> Oh my gosh.
That's that's And how can that continue to be perpetuated? That is the that is the that's what's stunning to me.
Because they're liars. Like they like they're just lying. I don't know if this guy actually knows kind of the background and the history, but like the people that actually know the background of Sanford's book and like have been, you know, kind of going back and forth on this for what? They know better.
They're just lying about it. They know that the distribution that Sanford's math is based on is a modeling distribution, not an empirical distribution. And then Sanford took that distribution and changed it again with no empirical basis.
Yeah.
>> And then he has the nerve in his book to call it in the figure in the book it says correct distribution.
And there's there's no empirical basis for it. That's That's like a suspect in the in the interrogation room. I'm not I'm I'm telling you the truth. I'm not I don't lie.
>> [laughter] >> They're lying like they're standing there lying to you.
Amber has figured it out though, I would I would like to say. The reason why there there would be mice but not humans. Yeah, because the mice didn't sin.
>> There you go. So, they're good. Yep.
That's it. We got it.
That's >> Amber's cracked the case. So, there's there's one more really entertaining to me personally addendum to this story about genetic entropy because one of my friends, Dr. Zach Hancock, his channel is called Talk Pop Gen. And if you like what we're talking about here, folks, let me tell you you should totally subscribe to Talk Pop Gen because this is a man who genuinely loves population genetics deeply and is just does a fantastic job explaining it. And he read Sanford's book and was so mad He read Sanford's book and then he read a paper that John Sanford wrote with another guy, William Basener, in 2018 about kind of fitness and it was a genetic entropy paper without using those words and it was legit paper published in the Journal of Mathematical Biology. It was a terrible paper, but it was totally legit, went through peer review, whole nine yards.
He read this paper and got so mad, he decided he was going to write a response to it.
And so, that paper was actually published and I was the co-author on it.
So, it was Hancock and Stern Cardinal, 2024, in Journal of Mathematical Biology.
And it went through the math for real using an empirical distribution of fitness effects and among other things showed that genetic entropy is fake and doesn't actually happen. So, there is a paper in the literature right now that literally no creationists have responded to that shows all of this is fake.
When was that paper done? That was that was here. I'm going to put the link in the private chat so you can drop it in the YouTube chat if you want. It's called Back to Fundamentals responding to Basener and Sanford 2020 or 2018. Um I'll I'll find it real fast.
Yeah, that is that's that's great. I I want to read that.
I like to read it.
Yep. So, that is Any any creationist that says anything about genetic entropy, you can just throw this paper at them and say, "Here you go. You're wrong.
Respond to this paper." And the thing most creationists almost none I I don't know of any who actually deal with this can actually explain the math in this paper. Cuz it's like legit hardcore pop gen math that Zach had to like walk through it with me because it's beyond what I had experience doing. Yeah.
>> And so, these creationists that kind of dabble in it with the talking points, they don't understand the actual math.
Okay.
>> So, that's why genetic entropy is nonsense, folks. It's completely made up pop gen and bonus, it's there's a paper in the literature that disproves it.
Okay, cool.
I'm going to say debunking genetic entropy.
Thank you.
Nice.
So, yeah, the it just It's so bad.
>> I it's so bad it's so bad. And and I've I've heard that um argument before and I did not know the the term for it, the genetic entropy.
>> It's genetic entropy is what they call it. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. So.
Yeah. So, okay. So, we are moving on then.
Pass before we get too upset.
Yeah, what else Yeah, how how much worse can we get than than genetic entropy cuz like like you ask like an actual someone who understands pop gen, you explain genetic entropy to them and they're like, "No, that's not the argument." I've had online conversations with other scientists where they've accused me of misrepresenting Sanford's argument because they're like, "He wouldn't say that." And I had to like quote the book and show them that's what he actually said.
Wow. Right. I mean that's what that's what I'm saying is like how how can these people get away with this? How can they >> Well, the fun part is they don't. Most people don't know anything about these people. They're totally fringe and to, you know, various creationist organizations have been saying for decades that evolution is on its last legs. It's a theory in crisis. Any day now it's going to come crashing down.
And literally real scientists have no idea who these people are.
Yeah. Like when I was in grad school, I would ask like, "Have you heard of Nathaniel Jeanson? Do you know what he wrote about time to most recent common ancestor calculations?" They'll be like, "Who's Nathaniel Jeanson and why should I care?"
It's like, "Good question."
>> [snorts] >> Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. So, that that will be that will be fascinating. I'll I'll probably understand about eighth of of it, but uh >> [laughter] >> I'll say that Zach on his channel Talk Pop Gen has a fantastic video with a whiteboard going through it. It's delightful. Oh, awesome. Okay. Um Amber, if you're still around, if you can find that link, that would be awesome and put that in the chat. Okay.
Uh They're They're They're going to talk to a chemist now. Oh, no. So, let's see let's see what he has to say about geology.
Do we have the video up?
Hm.
>> [clears throat] >> I'm I'm watching it.
You want to watch it, too? Seriously.
>> I would love to.
>> [laughter] >> I forgot that I Yeah, okay. Was the sound on at all or no? No, it wasn't on there. Okay.
>> all. Not for that last little bit. Yep, sorry.
>> fossils And uh so, the big question is, can these things last for millions of years?
To understand this, we're going to talk with a chemist, Dr. Ryan Hayes. He teaches in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Andrews University, which happens to be my alma mater. So, I'm excited to hear what Dr. Hayes has to say about this. So, welcome Dr. Hayes. Hi, Ryan.
Hi, it's good to be here. Thanks for having me on.
This is an exciting topic. We're uh yeah, thinking about chemicals in recent creation and boy, there's a lot of new information that's coming out, you know, here in just in the last few years and in the last uh decade or so about all all these molecules that are, you know, being found in, you know, in geological formations or pulling up dinosaur bones and finding uh tissue in there. That this is just utterly amazing. It is incredible stuff. And I think that that most people have a kind of um gut level understanding that something like proteins, that that's the stuff that muscles are made out of. That's what That's meat. And we know that meat doesn't last for very long on a dead animal. So, the idea that you would find these things, for example, in dinosaur bones, if you if you remove the the um uh the the the the the the yeah, the the the not the bone marrow itself, but the hard part, the the that part of the bone, you are actually left with proteins. Uh you can do that with obviously modern bones. If you take a cow's bone and remove this chemical that's in there called uh calcium.
Calcium apatite, isn't it? Um um it's hydroxyapatite. Yeah. Hydroxyapatite.
No, I'm not.
Enough of the chemist talk. I love it.
Yeah. I I was just remarking with my students even today about the chemical properties of carbon-based uh molecules, which we're made out of and all life is made out of, and the energy that is uh holding our bonds together is actually somewhat easily broken just from the heats and the lights um that we have uh shining on our planet that comes right out of our planet itself. And and the molecules were in some ways are designed not to to last forever uh without some input uh into the system. So, when when things are left out in the open or left uh on the ground, uh there's biological things that will come and attack and chew them all up or just UV lights and heat uh or even the cold >> Just repeating, but the guy said before the chemicals that we're made out of and living things are made out of. About the cold on the uh that long. Well, there's also something that I thought of called um background radiation. And apparently, you know, over over short periods of time, it's not that much, but over the course of millions of years, this background radiation that everything is exposed to, unless you're repairing the damage to these molecules, you're going to wind up shredding them because they're big molecules and from that radiation you get Background radiation is not what is affecting our cells. That's just like that is that is not what WHAT THE ARENA?
>> [laughter] >> I MEAN I MEAN I mean right? Okay, so background radiation is our What what what what's left from the the Big Bang and why we why we know that that's what happened.
They're confu- They're talking about cosmic background radiation, right? Is that what they're talking about?
>> Yeah, that he said the background radiation and then so and and I mean it's not much. Right, it's not much because It's not going to mutagenize your cells or break your bones.
>> No, that's called the sun.
Oh my god.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what he said.
>> [sighs] >> That's impressive.
This is Do you even ionizing radiation, bro?
>> [laughter] >> No.
Yeah, they are Seventh-day Adventists.
This this whole this whole channel, I believe. And the profes- Yeah, the professor he's talking to as well. So, um That's useful context.
Yeah. Yeah, so Yeah, okay. Just so it Moving on.
You just said over millions of years.
You don't believe there has been millions of years.
>> In fact, the the the the the whole point of this is the fact that we find these molecules in in fossils is a pretty good indicator that those fossils are not, in fact, millions of years old. And so, the idea would be and and Dr. Ryan, correct me if I Dr. Dr. Hayes, Dr. Ryan Hayes, correct correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but um uh you know, if you find something that should have broken down over a long period of time, that probably tells you that there hasn't been a long period of time.
That's absolutely right. I think many people don't realize that uh our DNA and a lot of the molecules in our body are just being pummeled. Uh we have thousands of breaks happening every day because of the radioactive uh Earth that we live in. I I love making that point to my students and the people I talk to.
We live in a very radioactive world and the reason why we don't see a lot of that damage uh in the short term, like days, weeks, and years, is that we there are at least five known repair systems that are constantly fixing the trillions of miles of DNA that we have in our in our in our body. So, without those repair mechanisms, DNA and and so many other organic molecules will just fall apart from the radioactivity and other things that we've talked about. So, just we live in a really radioactive world, but we're sort of shielded from that in the sense that there there was design that knew what problems would happen and systems, little machines that go in and fix our DNA. So, our our DNA is constantly being destroyed in little bits and pieces every day and it's eventually after enough decades, um you know, this leads to cancer and so this is why there's such a problem with cancer is that eventually uh the systems can't keep up with all the damage that's happening in our bodies. This work received the Nobel Prize in 2015 uh in chemistry figuring out how our DNA is being repaired. So, when we find these things in in the ground and or in the Earth, they they can't be that old.
These things just don't last that long.
>> It just can't be.
Is Tommy still here?
I don't know.
>> Go ahead.
I don't even know what to say to that because this is bananas, especially because these are young Earth creationists. So, if they're saying all of this radiation is a problem, that makes it worse, not better for them because they still have to deal with the radiation because in the various rock layers that they claim were laid down during the flood, you can find evidence of radiation. But instead of having all of that decay occurring over billions of years, you have to compress it into a single one one you Basically, you have like a couple centuries to get all that radiation out, which means you're going to not just melt the Earth's crust, but convert it into plasma.
Or you could say, well, God intervened to make it not happen. Or it was made to look that way, but it didn't actually happen. In which case, we're just playing Calvin ball and, you know, who's to say how old the Earth actually is. It could have, you know, there was a recently a schism on a stream that that I did not that long ago between the last Thursday-ists and the last millisecond-ists.
And who's to say?
Okay. Yeah. What?
>> could If God could have created the world last Thursday, why couldn't he created the world a millisecond ago?
Uh So, there was a schism.
>> [laughter] >> I can't even I can't even.
I can't What?
And they're fighting about that?
>> [laughter] >> That just It just Oh, is it I'm I'm literal sometimes.
No, no. In in uh uh I was talking This came up in a in a recent stream that I did and in chat, people were joking about when God actually created the world and there was a schism between the people who said it was last Thursday, as is traditional, versus the people who said it was last millisecond.
Okay, so that was a joke. Yeah. And it was just like, why if you're going to say, like, either you have a heat problem with all the radiation because you can look at the rocks and the rate like and you're going to say they're probably somebody's going to say you weren't there, did you see it? Whatever.
Well, as my friends Jackson Wheat and R.J. Downard are fond of saying and wrote a book by the title of, the rocks were there. Regardless of when it happened, the rocks were there and the rocks say there was radiation. So, you have to account for it, including the heat. And if you're going to squeeze all of that into the young Earth timeline, congratulations, you just turned the crust into plasma.
Yes.
Yes, and and you also have to account for the magnetic the magnetic the changing magnetic fields because also in the uh the layers of the rock, we have uh di- dipoles, many dipoles that are either pointing one way and then in another layer pointing another way. So, uh right for the changes in the environment for that to happen. Again, I mean it's just like it's just like nuclear melting of the Earth multiple times over.
Yeah. I mean with the bananas. Yeah, with the with the the plates, the tectonic plates after the flood, you know, then they move or they move because of the flood. I mean like the waters will be boiling and everything would melt and A uh Walt Brown, a young Earth creationist, uh actually calculated the heat output that would result from all of this, the the plate tectonics moving at like hundreds of miles per hour, the, you know, the radiate like all this stuff.
And it works out to the equivalent of like a one megaton hydrogen bomb per square meter per I forget the unit time.
But it's just an obscene amount of energy output that there's no evidence of it at at like at all because if we had experienced anything approaching that amount of heat, you would see it everywhere, right? Because you'd see all of the evidence of boiling of the water and then the the condensation of the water and the melting of the rocks and then the reforming of the rocks. Cuz there's one thing we can tell, it's when rocks are molten and then they harden again, right? And there's just none of that that would be required across the entire surface just in these uniform layers.
You know, it's Yeah.
Yeah.
It is It is stunning. It's stunning.
Okay, yes, uh noise ending. Cal- Calvinball mentioned, uh can you please explain because that is a new term to me? Yeah, oh, so Calvinball comes from Calvin and Hobbes, the comic series.
Okay.
>> And um so, with the kid Calvin and his his uh toy tiger Hobbes, who, you know, becomes a character in the comic's imagination. And um they play a game called Calvinball, and the rules of Calvinball are you make up the rules as you go.
And you just the rules just change, and I might cuz we have to interpret the Bible literally. Only the parts that I say so. Yeah. Yeah. The rest are figurative, but just So, we're playing Once you Once you get to a situation where God can intervene to change like the like the constants that govern processes like nuclear decay, we're just playing Calvinball with reality, and you can't measure anything. So, here we are.
Yeah, you can't You can't You can't do anything. Yes.
Uh uh Brandon, I mean PhDs, these are these are PhDs in their field, and so there's obviously something else besides scientific thinking that brings them here.
So, I mean, that's all I know to say is that for some reason it's very important to to believe the Bible really literally.
Or parts of the Bible.
I guess that would be the way Right.
>> [laughter] >> Cuz only only if you part We're going to pick and We have to interpret the Bible literally.
Only the parts that I say so.
Yeah. Yeah.
>> are figurative, but just No metaphors allowed there.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
Let's see how they What about a situation like these people who freeze their bodies um so that they could be resurrected later on? Is that something that I mean, is is there some conceivable way in which we could preserve things in in a so that they would last for millions of years as it's being as some people believe?
>> Oh, Paul, can I make a prediction? Sure.
I mean, that's I mean Yes. Yes. I think at some point they're going to be like, "No, you can't actually do it. Tissues break down. Whatever." And also, someone's going to make the point about a soul. I think that's going to happen here.
Oh.
>> I would ex- I would expect that to happen.
Let's see. They're going to say, "Even if you could, there's more to it than that. You have to have the soul, the breath of life, whatever." I bet that's going to happen.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay, that I may Yeah, let's let's see.
>> Okay, I I have to put this up because this is a joke from ZenDenzo, which is Thursday nights, and uh they're literally interpreting it figuratively. Yes.
Yes. I like it. Yeah. Would want to try that, right? If you could cool things down cold enough, maybe you could stop a lot of the the degradation, but the fact of the matter is a lot of that radioactivity is going to just slam right through even frozen material.
So, uh sure it's a good idea to try to freeze something or encase it in in something so it can last a long time, uh but that is a real that even in in themselves is a real challenge and takes design to figure out how can you can preserve something for such a long time in a random fashion? Just throw some cold on it, it'll last forever. Uh I don't think so, you know, but that's just something that scientists are looking at how do you keep something last for a long time? It's not easy, cuz it's a it's a hard problem to get biological materials to last a long time. It's a hard problem. And so, even when people are working on it then, you'd say that's something that probably isn't going to happen, let alone with with some fossil that's been buried in the ground in in whatever in sandstone or limestone or whatever, you just simply wouldn't expect to get anything lasting for for millions of years in it.
No, that's it's exactly right. I mean, so we shouldn't be we shouldn't be surprised that um these things degrade fast. We shouldn't be surprised that we're seeing anything. I think a lot of scientists are surprised that bones are turning up tissue and uh just finding anything that resembles organic molecules is just utterly amazing, but yet that's what we're finding in in bones and a lot of samples that by radiometric means they seem to be really old, but yet they defy uh you know, chemical degradation. This is uh this is amazing. So, I think this is some really good evidence pointing to uh the fact that life uh is a relatively recent thing on this planet, thousands of years. I think I think we have to uh take that into strong consideration, for sure. So, that means that you do accept the biblical account and the generations to say that our earth is probably no more than 6,000 years old.
Yeah, you know, give or take a few thousand years, uh but for sure. And I think as a scientist you have to uh look at the credibility of the Bible. And the fact that this document has lasted so long and and has described so many things that are so accurate, uh I would love for my textbook to be that accurate.
>> [laughter] >> Dr. Kent He wishes his textbook was as accurate as the Bible. Oh, you know, I'm not a biblical scholar, but um I bet biblical scholars, real ones, would have uh have a problem with that one. There's There's another fun thing that's always worth pointing out here when creationists make this, and this is not my field, so when I've spoken to creationists, I haven't brought this up, but I would love for like somebody who's expertise is specifically in uh you know, geology or or paleontology to bring this up, is we have not just proteins and DNA from very ancient specimens, 10 you know, conventionally dated, let's say, right?
I'm talking Neanderthals, woolly mammoths, right? There's a There's like this on-again, off-again project to resurrect woolly mammoths because we actually theoretically, you know, we have enough DNA that we know their genome sequence, and in theory it's close enough to modern elephants that you could do it, right? We've We've got not just these samples, but we have like mummified remains where you have actual soft tissue, right? Like literal actual soft tissue that you find. Um >> Right.
Both in terms of the density of the specimens and in terms of the level of preservation and let's say freshness of the specimens, in a young earth paradigm, all of these things, whether it's Neanderthals, woolly mammoths, dinosaurs, non-avian dinosaurs, they're all the same age. Why don't we find mummies of the dinosaurs the same way we do, you know, woolly mammoths, right? That we can extract DNA from.
Why don't we find those specimens? They lived in environments that were conducive to it. Of course they did.
They lived in, you know, swampy, marshy, anoxic environments where if they died and fell in the water, it's very low uh bacteria, rapid sedimentation, right?
It's a perfect environment for like this kind of preservation, mummification process to happen. And we like we have a lot of examples of this of other things.
Why don't we have dinosaurs for that?
They lived all at the same time in the same environments.
Where are all the dinosaur specimens?
This is a good question. I'm I'm So, we've got We have Brie pointed out that we do have one.
The Edmontosaurus. Yeah, that's a good one.
Okay.
>> like a lot. And you can't To my knowledge, they haven't extracted any DNA or anything from that one, which in theory they should be able to.
So, is uh is there an answer?
Uh the answer is because the dinosaurs are older.
Oh, I see. Okay. Like it's You have a like >> environment, but but very many many many many years. Right. It's >> no DNA. There's no DNA in the dinosaur.
Okay, thank you, Brie. See, we're such a smart chat. I love you guys. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, I And and another another kind of thing to this is you can also do um you can also do um carbon-14 dating on the the recent specimens cuz they're within 50,000 years, right? But you do this on dinosaurs, and you get like this crazy range of dates from 50 to however many hundred thousand years. Um but again, they all formed at the same time in the creationist model, so why doesn't it work on those specimens the same way it works on the actual recent specimens?
It's because the dinosaurs are not recent, cuz they actually existed tens of millions of years ago, and not 5,000.
Yeah.
Just follow your own rules, creationists. That's all I'm asking.
Just follow your own rules. Everything is supposed to be the same age.
Therefore, the prediction is that we're going to find the same level of preservation and degradation across all of these different things, both biologically and radiometrically. And we don't find it. And this is what I This is like why I call it Calvinball, right?
It's because, "Oh, well, reasons."
Okay.
>> Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's just the the misinformation that you're talking about vessels and hemoglobin.
>> Yeah. They're not actual white blood vessels. That's nonsense. Right. Right.
Doesn't does not compute.
So, um I'm not sure how much uh more actual content there is. There may be some more Bible stuff, but let's see.
Oh, do they do all Bible stuff now?
Pardon?
Do they Is it just all Bible stuff? Cuz you know, these these creationist streams, there's always a point where they change gears, and they just go like, "The answer to all these questions we've raised today is faith in the Bible." And if you blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, and at that point I'm just like, "Great, thanks."
Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it it it basically ends with, "Well, um so this just proves that the Bible is true."
Yeah.
>> That's That's, you know, the Yeah. Okay, this is this is awesome.
Velociferror.
>> [laughter] >> Uh for the mama mummified uh uh Oh.
>> dinosaur. And and as far as it dinos at least one dinosaur mummy movie, that would be Yeah. Yeah.
>> Somebody make There's got to be like a King Tut dinosaur pun somewhere in there. Chat, I have faith in you. I know there's a King Tut dinosaur pun we can make. I just haven't found it yet, but I know it's there.
So this is something I'm not familiar with, so this may be a joke somewhere that I'm not a loss of pastor exists.
I'm assuming >> type of I don't recognize that, but I'm assuming it's a joke.
Let's see. Yeah.
Help us out cuz and I am >> Velocipastor.
The Velocipastor. Okay, this is >> a movie.
>> [laughter] >> It's a movie.
2018, The Velocipastor.
The man of the claw.
That's a good one.
Oh my gosh, that's hysterical. Okay.
>> [laughter] >> That is funny.
>> That's a real thing.
Oh my gosh. Oh, is that Did you find it?
Are you sharing it?
>> I found I put the I I put the I M D I M D D link in the private chat here.
>> [laughter] >> Here we go.
That is awesome.
>> That is like Velocipastor. Okay.
I might have to watch it.
Um yeah, so I think that is I think that I think they wrap up with the chemistry guy and he just kind of rattles on about nonsense for a second just to try and wrap wrap things up and stretch the time out, I think.
>> [laughter] >> As they as they finish up, but but yeah, this is >> Yeah.
>> the way the way that they end pretty much is, you know, this is again, this proves you know, this I don't see I see, it's a hard. Sometimes the words are hard to try and explain.
>> I'm with you. I'm with you. I try to explain this thing. Yeah. Just like, "No, you don't understand the degree of the nonsense that It's hard to put to words just how wrong it is. It's incredible." Yeah.
And it's and to It's It's like apples and oranges, or it's kind of like oranges and planets. I mean, like the difference is just so huge.
And and just the idea that, "Oh, well, it just There's just no way." The The The proof is incredulity. Like it just can't happen. It must It must be that they're young, and so therefore don't even don't even radiometric dating. We said the word, but it's just a different clock, and these clocks are, you know, they don't fit. Yeah, okay, so we we're getting a few jokes. And they didn't even like try to make the argument with that, right? They just said they're different clocks, but one of the clocks was coal laid on the ground for 5 million years, which is not a real thing. That is probably one of the most ludicrous explanations that I found in the in this series of videos. I have I find that just stunning.
>> like they think coal is sedimentary rock, and it formed, and then it just sat there for 5 million years, and then more rock formed on top of it. But it was the plants, but he said nothing about that. I think he maybe have caught himself, you know, it's like it's from plants, and then they just jump right into the next cuz it's like it's from plants. It had to happen after they were >> buried, but then how did it sit on the surface for 5 million years? And the answer to that is how you actually get, as Chad explained, those layers, which is it forms, then there's erosion, and then more stuff forms on top, and right, you have alternating cycles of erosion and deposition or sedimentation. I don't know what the right word cuz I'm not a not a geologist, but yeah.
Yeah.
All right, well, we have to we have to find the right the right name here. So Tut Rex for T-Rex.
>> in there. It's something because Rex is king, so there's a way to do it. It's Tut Tutrisaurus Rex.
>> [laughter] >> Tutrisaurus Rex. Like Yeah, no, I think you can get like a Tutranosaurus Rex.
>> we have to say Rex. So right, so it has to be like Tutrisaurus Rex, and that's like your King Tut dinosaur.
Mhm. Tut Triceratops, that's a good That's a good one.
>> Yeah.
Tetanusaurus.
These are all Yeah, cuz Tetanusaurus, yeah, that works. Yeah, these are all These are all very good uh very good candidates. So >> Crowd so crowd source the King Tut Tyrannosaurus Rex joke in there. We'll find it.
>> [laughter] >> We'll pre came up with the best answers, for sure.
So yeah. Yeah, yeah, that's good. So um well, I hope that um it didn't upset you too much.
Look, if I'm sitting here talking about why some creationist somewhere is talking nonsense, I can't complain. It's your thing. It's what I do. I This is what I chose to do on the internet, so you know what? If If I am to complain, it's my own fault. But I'm not going to complain because this was delightful.
Excellent. Well, how is How does this compare to some of the uh the other kinds of things that you that you debunk?
So this one is So this was a a grab bag.
A lot of times you get like, "We're going to talk about this topic, and we're going to go for 45 minutes on that topic." And this was the other genre, which is the the basically the Gish gallop, right? Of this and this other thing and this other thing and this other thing. And what? We got through like, what, half an hour of that video?
And we talked for more than they talked about the science-y stuff that they were talking about because of the, you know, the BSA symmetry principle, right? It takes longer to explain it than it does to make the claim. And that's just something we got to deal with. You just have to put in the time. Right. You know. And they just made so many claims with no science behind it at all. Like that's That's what's stunning to me is that these PhDs will sit there and say all of these things that don't have any any scientific support at all.
Nothing. And not even like try. A lot of times they'll at least make an argument where you can connect the dots. You know, we observed A, and it was published in this paper, and that means B, and therefore young Earth, right?
There wasn't even that much of that here. It was just, "Look at these layers of rock. They must be recent, and we found blood vessels," which is wrong. We didn't find blood vessels. And right, it was just a series of disjointed claims without an over overarching therefore. Uh I mean, obviously the the ultimate argument is the Earth is young, but there was no attempt to like construct a coherent narrative. It was just do do do, which you know, if your if your target audience is a non-scientific audience and you just want them to feel comfortable about the conclusion, then great. You don't have to explain it. You just say, "Look, this proves it, and this proves it, and that proves it." And you're good, which is what they're doing, I think.
Yeah, that's true.
I I You're very very close to making me compliment James Tour because he at least tries to say, "Well, you can't make this, you know, It's It's There's You know, there's that famous that famous tweet, if you're if you're way down the rabbit hole like I am, of the the under no circumstances I forget the exact wording, but it was the under no circumstances do you do you have to hand it to X. And I forget what X was in the original joke. But, you know, it was like under I revise my original whatever, under no circumstances do you have to hand it to X. And like under no circumstances do you have to hand it to James Tour.
But, he stays on topic, and he like everything he says is wrong, but he makes an argument, right?
Yeah. I mean, at least he attempts to make some Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.
No. No, that's that's what I was going to say. I mean, at least he tries to like, you know, well, he just throws out a lot of science-y stuff. He at least tries to provide some evidence, even though it's all horrible. He'll very famously cite lots of scientific papers. He'll misuse them. I agree with the comments in chat that James Tour is a huge grifter. Yes, he is.
Um but in terms of structuring the argument, right? There is an attempt to make it like a coherent narrative, which is just absent from a lot of the uh you know, once again, you never have to hand it to James Tour, but I'm going to, you know, in the hierarchy, right?
The ability to craft a narrative is absent from a lot of the lower-tier creationist content, right? Where it's just like boom boom boom boom, this this shotgun effect of claims without any you know, overarching story. And um Yeah. Yeah. But I love it when they try to do genetic entropy. I love it when they go, "Mutations are all bad. We should be extinct." It's like, just just keep it coming. Let's do it.
Let's just do that.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
This is true. I This has been ringing out in my head, too. Yeah, especially cuz >> [laughter] >> I love that that's the only thing anybody remembers from that debate is just screaming at him telling him to take the chalk and go to the board. Like I want that that's the only thing anyone remembers is James Tour acting like a maniac.
Yeah.
Yeah, I I agree. I agree.
>> [laughter] >> Yeah, I mean it's just it's just it's part of the lore now, right?
Thumbs up and someone just yells in all caps, "Mr. Farina." And everybody knows what we're talking about. It's amazing how that became a meme just immediately.
Incredible.
>> Exactly, Tommy. You make a lot of good points, Dan, but can you draw it on the chalkboard? Well, I don't have any chalk, but like take the chalk. Take it.
>> [laughter] >> Like go, Mr. Farina. I just it was I I Do you have Oh, well, you you do have a white board that you use in your in your uh ti- videos sometimes. So, I'll I'll do stuff I like to do stuff so just like I do for class. I do everything on PowerPoint. And the reason I do everything on PowerPoint, people make so much fun of me for this and it's 100% earned. I totally get it. It's all like the graphics I make for my classes. It's all on PowerPoint rather than something like Illustrator or something because if it's on PowerPoint, I can change it in real time like right before class starts. I can just pull it up and boop edit it and and I'm good to go. So, I do everything on PowerPoint.
And it's fine.
>> everything on PowerPoint except for when I was making videos of my note and I would use note notebook. Is that what it's called?
OneNote. I would use OneNote because it was very easy to just like have a big old piece of paper. Yeah, and I could just and and I could connect it to uh uh It's not Game Boy, but anyway, what's it called? Anyway, there's a streaming a gaming software that I could video it with, yeah. So, that was that was easy, so.
Yeah. Yeah. So, Yeah, this is this is what I'm saying, Miranda, is that when when you try to tell them that not all mutations are bad, it just gets into a never-ending cycle of you're wrong because they cannot hear that sentence. They just it's it it it it it it just >> And then and then I say, "Here's the published paper with the empirical distribution of fitness effects. Refute that paper or GTFO."
Yeah.
Like there it is. You pull up the paper and tell me why it's wrong cuz that's in the literature and it refutes the paper you're citing. Done. Like Yeah.
>> And they can't do it. They Nobody has tried It's been 2 years now since that paper was published and literally no professional creationist has addressed it.
That's that's very telling.
Yeah.
You win.
>> [laughter] >> Yeah.
That's it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, be- before you go, um I I'm not monetized. I don't have super chats. So, I was just going to say if there's anybody in the chat that wanted to to ask Dr. Dan a question, um yeah, go ahead and we'll we'll we'll keep an eye on that. So, I probably should have said that that sooner, but um but yeah, so I I was planning at one point to go over every video in this series, but I think that just a couple of them is enough because it it's such it's it's such bad >> It's bad.
>> bad science. It's like I'm like it's like the kindergarten version, but it's all lies. You know, kindergarten science, but it's all lies.
>> Yeah, it's it's >> So, Yeah, baby's first creation science is what it like this is for the audience who doesn't know the deep lore.
You know, we're just starting off.
Eventually >> Right.
they'll go down the rabbit hole and they'll find Jeans and Sanford and everybody, but they haven't yet.
Yeah.
Yeah. I think um it one of the things that may I mean, I could be wrong, but I it seems to me that one of the things that interferes with some people's ability to kind of allow for old Earth is just the big this the bigness of the numbers, right? Millions and millions and you know, billions of years for the universe and that kind of thing. It just because our little brains just Oh, yeah.
>> We just don't we don't like we don't like those numbers.
It's like trying to figure like what is a billion years like?
Yeah. Yeah. I think Yeah, totally. It could totally be part of it.
Yeah.
>> Yeah.
Yeah.
So, >> And I have no idea what to do about that.
>> [laughter] >> Yeah, I mean, like they're really really big and they're really really small with quantum physics, right? Cuz these things are just very hard to conceptualize.
Yeah, it just breaks down.
Mhm.
Yeah, very very much, so.
So, yeah Oh, yeah, okay, good. Well, I just have to find other content, right?
>> [laughter] >> I I guess it's pretty much the same kind of thing.
Yeah. Yeah. Very good.
>> only so many creationist arguments that exist. There's one of the things that like I've been working on since the beginning of my channel was just creation myth X, right? Whatever that claim is. And I've got like 30 something of those and I'm like running out of those like I've basically run out of those to do. Like I don't know what other stuff I'm supposed to like specifically address so I can look at specific videos, talk about contradictions they have, give you like if you're debating like the quick way to deal with a certain thing. Yeah.
>> But in terms of like a 20 to 40 minute like let me walk you through why this argument is wrong, I feel like I've kind of exhausted any relevant arguments that I am qualified to talk about because they just haven't come up with anything new in like 40 years. There's only been a handful of new ideas. Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, as a as a teacher, I I can say that it doesn't hurt to do it all again >> [laughter] >> more than one time, right? To do it more than one because, you know, we we don't always remember everything. So, it's it's helpful to hear things more than once. So, I mean, if you find other examples of the same kind of thing, but even you know how that goes, so.
I totally agree. My philosophy is tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them.
Yes.
Yeah. Definitely.
I used to tell I learned this from actually from Dr. Connor was if you see it or hear it in more than one place, it's probably important. Like he was trying to teach college students how to know and so he was like, "If you if you hear it in class and it's in the reading, then it's probably important or if it's in more than one reading. Even though we don't talk about it in class, but if it's more if it's an idea that's in more than one reading, then it's probably important." And so, I would I would I would say so and then I would say that over and over again so that the students would know that what I was actually saying.
If you see it in one place, you know, I'd say that repeat that a couple times.
So, yes, uh Dr. Kent, the this is I don't even know. It's not even up to level of Josh McDowell as far as like creationism is concerned. I mean, we're talking we're talking like everybody poops.
That's it's, you know, the little children's book. That's what that's the level to me that this is.
>> we're dealing with here. Yeah, uh-huh.
Yeah. Yeah. So, Yeah. And as far as the numbers go, I agree. It's the big the bigness of numbers it really It's a good point. Cuz many many um a- areas of I mean, different sects of Christianity, you know, that the human is like the penultimate, right?
>> Yeah, it's it's the I think of that as the the the pale blue dot problem, right?
Mhm. You're familiar with that? If anyone's familiar with the the famous um I forget which space probe it was, but it took a picture facing backwards as it was like leaving the solar system. And you can just find the Earth in it. And it's the it's this little pale blue dot.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That uh how how >> [laughter] >> How can it be? How do it Yeah. Voyager.
Yeah.
Voyager, thank you. I knew someone would know it.
Thank you.
So, I'm sure that's your favorite book.
That's really awesome.
>> [laughter] >> But the everybody poops on the heat problem or the entropy problem.
>> Everyone [laughter] should. If you're arguing with a creationist, you should poop on the heat problem. That is that that's like cuz they have no answer. The answer is God did it and that's not an answer.
Right. Right.
So, thank you so much. I really appreciate you you being here and and helping us so much. Yes, the chat does know all. Wait, is the the chat does know all. So, um wait. Okay, I'm sorry. I was wrapping up, but you guys keep talking about cool stuff.
There are more I see arguments than arguments for God.
Oh, well, fascinating.
Mhm.
Yep. I'm not qualified to talk about that.
I can tell you why every creationist argument around genetics is wrong. That I am qualified to do.
>> Very good. Most other things I'm not qualified. You can't trust me.
Well, thank you so much. Um if I find anything very interesting that's also in your your area, I hope that you would be willing to come back and chat chat with us.
Um more population um genetics, that kind of I've you know enjoyed some of that or some of your work in that area.
So, that's really >> sure I'm sure there's somebody saying something dumb about junk DNA and you will find it eventually.
Okay. Yes. Yeah.
Yeah, that's going to be fun.
>> [laughter] >> Well, listen, thank you so much. We appreciate appreciate you being here.
This has just been a delight.
Um this was really fun. Thank you so much for having me. We should This is our first time hanging out. We happy to come back. This was great.
Great. Thanks. Take care.
Bye, everybody.
>> [music] [music]
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
