Some Creationists Tried to Debunk Me and It’s Pathetic

Hey everyone, some of you may remember the five part series I put out a few months ago debunking creationism. It actually hasn’t amassed a ton of views yet, which is a shame because I put a lot of work into it and I do think it’s a very helpful resource. So if you haven’t seen it yet, give it a watch at some point and share it with anyone you think might find it useful. But it has made the rounds in the creationist community, and a pair of room temperature IQ preachers has taken it upon themselves to

debunk my debunking, with hilarious results. Let’s take a look. So the channel that tried to debunk me is called Real Science Radio. Awww, look at the little DNA strand there! How ironic to use the exact thing you don’t understand as your own channel name and logo. The two clowns who run this dumpster fire are Fred Williams and Doug McBurney. I had to dig a little bit to find any background information, but it looks like Fred works in software, and Doug describes himself as a “bible student, science geek, and amateur comedian”. In other words, a pointless

buffoon. Rest assured, neither of them could pass a 9th grade biology quiz, and that ignorance will be shockingly apparent throughout this video, as they are so clueless that they make the Discovery Institute roster look like geniuses in comparison. Anyway, very much in the spirit of flat earthers who make Ken Burns documentary length series pretending to debunk me while they just crap their pants repeatedly, these bozos decided to do a four part series totaling to about three hours of hilarity, so let’s go through and pick out some highlights. Here’s the thumbnail for “The Debunking of Professor

Dave Part 1”, which says “credibility in crisis”. Here’s the big opening. And so Professor Dave is going to take you along the thin areas of the cheese, and while doing so he’s going to do the following. He’s going to erect straw man arguments against creationists. We’ll see that a lot in his videos. You’ll soon see many examples of claims that I’ve never once heard any creationist ever, make Doug. Ever. Stock image of cheese, whining about “straw man arguments” that don’t exist, calling it “evolution theory”, we already have a pretty solid grasp of the level of

intellect we’re dealing with here. Now Doug, because of the popularity of his YouTube channel, he has like over three million subscribers, he has elicited responses from prominent creation and intelligent design scientists including several at the Discovery Institute and also Dr. James Tour who we interviewed earlier this year. Yes, because I have exposed the crap out of all those people, they made endless damage control pieces about me, quickly realized that only made things worse as it motivated me to expose them even harder, so now they all pretend I don’t exist. That opened the door for you

third tier basement-dwellers to take a swing, with even less impressive results. By the way, it warms my heart that every single comment under these videos, and I really mean every single comment, is just roasting the crap out of these nitwits. Maybe there is hope for humanity after all. His real name is David James Farina. And even though he’s named after both an apostle of Jesus Christ and the king of Israel, he calls himself an atheist. Wow, having common names didn’t automatically brainwash me. Unbelievable. According to the Discovery Institute, David James is neither a professor nor

a PhD but just a failed ex-teacher who tried unsuccessfully to get a master’s degree in chemistry. And Fred, while his academic failures don’t, I mean that doesn’t necessarily disqualify him from speaking on science… Yeah, when you’re looking for reliable information, head over to Discovery Institute! The super reliable Christian propaganda mill that is literally always lying. Great job, morons. Also, they refer to me as David James the entire series, because apparently they’re too dumb to even understand how names work. James is my middle name. I go by Dave, fellas. Dave Farina would be what you’re looking

for if you wanted my full name. Then regarding the professional background, “failed ex-teacher” doesn’t mean anything. I used to teach organic chemistry at a university to support myself. Now I’m a science communicator, which has been far more impactful and lucrative for me. And it is quite a relief to hear that not having an advanced degree in a scientific field shouldn’t disqualify me from talking about science, because neither of you dumbasses have one either. I don’t think Doug even went to college. So you’re probably gonna wanna tone down this pathetic posturing. You’re both supremely unqualified willfully

ignorant asshats cosplaying as scholars, and everyone is laughing at you. His arts degree has helped him in delivering what I’m told are decent quality videos, especially in areas outside of chemistry and evolution. I’m hear some of them are pretty good. I don’t have any “arts degrees”. I studied chemistry and science education. And because I studied chemistry and then taught chemistry at a university, that’s what I’m best at teaching, as can easily be confirmed by asking any chemistry student at any university who I am and which courses I helped them pass. Sorry to inconvenience you with

my expertise, fellas. I did hear him embarass himself discussing plasma astronomy, and I’ve just not watched any of his other stuff. Plasma astronomy? Are you pretending there’s something wrong with my astronomy tutorials, or are you announcing that you’re an electric universe proponent? That even a pretender like Dave should hear the truth in hopes that even a guy like him might eventually believe the gospel and avoid an eternity of conscious torment. An eternity of conscious torment, which is where he’s headed, Fred. And he likely knows that he’s going straight to hell, Fred. Because he’s generally vulgar

and profane and just a really nasty person. Especially to people with opposing views. Awww, am I such a mean poopyhead, Dougy? Does it hurt your feelings when I shatter your “opposing views”, also known as script of lies, with my objective facts? Do you fantasize about me burning in fire eternally, like every other sadistic bible thumper in your cult? Way to demonstrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of creationists in a tidy little sound bite for all to hear. Anyone who believes in hell, and that you go there to suffer immeasurably and eternally just for saying naughty

words, is a fucking moron. He's also a communist, an anti-semite, and I’m not calling him names, Fred. Check out his listing at rational wiki and just follow the links. And you’ll see. But one thing that did surprise me, Fred. He’s not gay! Yeah, well good point. Wow. What? My rational wiki page does not say anything like that, and what’s with this anti-gay comment? What does it even mean? You’re surprised I’m not gay because… I’m a sinner and you think being gay is a sin so I should be all the sinful things? Do you think being

a hateful slanderous bigot is a sin? Tread lightly, sinners. But you know again because he’s got so many, he’s built up such a big YouTube following, he’s got over three million subscribers, and he actually disseminates, based on the videos I watched that he’s put out, he does disseminate much of what secular evolutionist scientists believe. Yes, I explain science on YouTube. That’s the sentence you’re looking for. I’m gonna start with a graphic that he shows on the different types of creation science. And I’m gonna read this for our listening audience. And so, he’s got a list

from one to eight, and he starts with what he calls the most unscientific and then it goes down to the least unscientific. So he starts with flat earth geocentrism. So right there he’s putting in something that, you know, Doug we fight against the flat earth idea, and unfortunately there’s plenty of Christians who have fallen for that, there’s both Christians and evolutionists in fact. I know for many years the president of the flat earth society is an evolutionist. There is no “flat earth society”. That’s not a real thing. And no, people who fall for flat earth

do not believe in evolution. They reject all of science. Also evolutionist is not a real word. You’re just as gullible as you are stupid. So then right after that he lists young earth creationism. So he puts it right next to flat earth as the most unscientific. And then he goes number three gap creationism and then day age creationism and then progressive creationism which is the Hugh Ross crowd, and then after that he puts intelligent design, and he’s going up in order of more scientific. He calls it least unscientific. And then theistic evolution and then finally

deistic evolution. So Fred, he lists deistic evolution and theistic evolution as more scientific than intelligent design? Yeah, he does. Huh. How can these bozos be this confused about their own beliefs? Yes, young earth creationism is profoundly stupid and unscientific. It is a rejection of literally all astronomy, all geology, all biology, and several other areas of science. Deistic evolution rejects precisely zero science. I explained all of this in the video, did you dumbasses actually watch it? Well that just strikes me as incongruous that he would not list intelligent design, which does not, well I guess intelligent

design does require a creator, although it could be aliens. Is it INCONGRUOUS, sweetie? Intelligent design is creationist propaganda that underwent a rebranding campaign, and it’s not aliens, it’s the Christian god you believe in. It is pseudoscience, and thus far more unscientific than deistic evolution. So we’re now showing a chart of what we believe is the types of creation science, and we believe this is the accurate representation of what he should show. And so the most scientific we’ve got listed is 1a, young earth creation. And then 1b I put intelligent design, you know, and that’s provided

that they don’t delve into geology and go too far with any lip service towards common descent. You guys are such cutie-patooties! Yes, I know that you like to invert reality and pretend your rejection of science you don’t like is super scientific. But it isn’t. And the little dig on the intelligent design folks who upset you by accepting a little bit of science so as not to appear batshit insane like you, that’s just chef’s kiss. How dare they say a few accurate things about geology while denying all of biology! The nerve! Course theistic evolution is a

complete capitulation to the secular world, secular evolutionists, and they basically they say gods, there is a god but everything else is true about evolution, big bang and all that stuff. Right, which is refuted by a number of scriptures. I know we don’t have time to list the bible verses but uh… Yes, some people believe in god while accepting science, but those people are unscientific morons because of bible verses you don’t have time to talk about. Quoting bible verses is totally the way you debate scientific principles. And what the audience will find is that he skirts

around the evidence that outright falsifies his claims. He kinda steers around it. He presents evolution as if the evidence is beyond overwhelming, using hyperbole such as “highly successful model”, “undeniable evidence”, “profound understanding”, “mountains of empirical evidence”, “high degrees of precision”. It’s not hyperbole when it’s just factually true statements, champ. I’ll keep reminding you of this as you fumble every single point you try to bring up in this entire series. So Professor Dave, he’ll present evolution like this piece of swiss cheese I’m showing right now in the video. It’s this clump of swiss cheese, it has

a couple of divots in it, but no holes in it. It’s like a really healthy looking piece of swiss cheese. So, but in reality Doug, this is what evolution really looks like, and now I’m showing swiss cheese with a lot of holes you can see, right Doug? Holy cheese right there, yeah! Actually it’s more like a gigantic 75 pound solid wheel of Parmigiano Reggiano. You can’t even point to any of these alleged divots, much less giant holes, and it will be hilarious watching you pretend otherwise for several hours. Young earth creationists in particular tend to

picture a kablooey graphic with fully formed planets and comets tumbling out, which indeed would be preposterous. Preposterous he says, preposterous! That’s obvious straw man, Fred. I’ve never met a creationists who claims that’s what the secular big bang teaches. That’s a caricature of creationism. Now we do believe that god created everything in six days, but he’s conflating that into us somehow misrepresenting what they believe about the big bang. It’s just completely disingenuous. Yeah, that’s right Doug. He then goes into storytelling about how elements condensed into clouds to form stars, and all that fantasy land stuff, and

it all eventually leads to all the heavy elements. So basically these morons are offended about me pointing out that they have no clue what big bang cosmology entails, and then he immediately proves me right by refering to basic astrophysics as “fantasy land stuff”. It’s so silly to think that we know how stars form! Astrophysics is wrong because I say so, but stop pretending that we misrepresent cosmology! Also, sorry, tons of creationists believe exactly what I said. They think science alleges that the big bang was an explosion that produced all the stars and planets. I’ve interacted

with hundreds of people like that. Denial and projection. That’s all these idiots have. So Doug, I’m pretty sure that it’s the secular astronomers, they’re the ones who are not going to want us to ask the tough questions, because the first thing we point is that huge elephant in the room, that big hole in the swiss cheese he doesn’t want his audience to know about, and that’s the fact that the James Webb Space Telescope is finding these fully formed galaxies where they aren’t supposed to be, way back towards the early big bang… Yeah it’s not like

I already made an entire video debunking this bullshit. JWST saw galaxies that were slightly older than expected, causing astrophysicists to slightly revise our model of galaxy evolution. That’s how science works. Create models. Use those models to offer predictions. Make observations. Refine the models. All these jerks can do is point at typical scientific development and pretend that the refinement of science invalidates science. That’s because they’re used to blindly believing unchanging dogma with zero basis in reality. These galaxies should not have had time to form. Now why isn’t Professor Dave talking about all the discoveries of the

James Webb and the Hubble telescope. We already knew some of this before. The James Webb just went on to confirm a lot of this stuff. Again, I did do that. Maybe if you weren’t too busy sucking off Eric Lerner and praying for your god to smite the evil atheists you would have found this video and learned something. The gravitational constant we refer to as big G, the cosmological constant that determines the rate of the universe’s expansion, and several others. It is often said by creationists that if any of these parameters differed from their current values

by even a few percent, that life would be impossible, and in some cases, even star formation or even atom formation would be impossible. Well I have news for Professor Dave. See this book I’m holding here, Doug? It’s called Rare Earth, and it’s co-authored by Dr. Donald Brownlee. He’s a professor of astronomy at Washington University. He’s the same Brownlee, Dr. Brownlee, that our very own Kevin Lee has interacted with regarding the overwhelming evidence that asteroids are floating rock piles that originated from Earth, from the global flood, the evidence continues to pile in. Wow. So even after

listening to me explain what fine tuning means, he still doesn’t know what fine tuning means. It’s about the fundamental constants of the universe, and this dumbass launches into some crap about asteroids being rocks from Earth. But what’s even more hilarious than Freddy being too stupid to know what fine tuning means, he’s just lying about this book. It makes the argument that complex multicellular life may be uncommon in the universe. It says nothing whatsoever about asteroids being rocks from Earth, or a global flood, or anything like that at all, and googling Donald Brownlee along with all

those key words turns up absolutely nothing. He’s just lying. No astronomer suggests the dumb thing he’s referencing, and do you know how I know that? Because it’s physically impossible. The asteroids in the asteroid belt have nearly circular orbits. That means they formed at that position in the initial protoplanetary disk. The idea that pieces of the earth would get blasted off and then all travel together to some other orbital radius and settle into a new nearly circular orbit defies the laws of physics. So to summarize, this douchebag just demonstrated he had no clue what I was

actually talking about, then lied about what an astronomer says, and then pretended that there was evidence for some insane bullshit that is obviously false at face value due to being totally incompatible with basic orbital mechanics. Oh, but the evidence continues to pile in, which is why he offered absolutely zero evidence for it, other than naming a random astronomer for no reason. Young earth creationists, everyone! And this data can be plotted to get something called the Hubble constant. The reciprocal of the Hubble constant will give us an estimation for the age of the universe. Fred all

of that scientific nomenclature, I just don’t know what to do as a creationist. I wish I would have learned more of this so I could pretend I understand more of it. Yeah. So what’s the hole in the cheese, Doug, he’s leaving out in this latest clip? Well he’s about five years behind the times. And by the way, when did it become 13.787? Did that just happen in the last 0.787 minutes? I thought it was 13.452. Now it’s 13.787? Well that’s news to me. But anyway, Professor Dave is about 5.725 years behind because NASA reported back

in 2019 that the Hubble constant has been contradicted. By findings ironically, by the Hubble telescope! Which is pretty cool. I mean you can’t write that, right? You couldn’t write that in a screenplay. All creationists do this. They take well-accepted science, and to pretend that it has been overturned, they reference some magazine article with a clickbait headline, and then read absolutely none of it. There is nothing in the text that’s viewable that contradicts anything I said about the age of the universe, and in fact it even references the roughly 13 billion year lifetime. Learn to read.

Mystery of the universe’s expansion rate widens with new Hubble data. The author bemuses that new theories may be needed to explain the forces that have shaped the cosmos there, David James. Does the author bemuse that, Dougy? I don’t see anything like that, because the article doesn’t say that. You’ve done nothing but say “nuh uh” to all of cosmology, reference one blog post without actually looking at any of it, make up what you want it to have said, and then move on. Pathetic. Well Doug, not only that, you mention the age of the universe, and they

always try to give it this exact number, 13.5689235, because we’re so smart, we’ve got it really narrowed down. Well you know there’s this Nobel winning astrophysicist, he now claims that the age of the universe is off by about a billion. A billion! Yeah a billion. I wonder if he really means like 989 million point 5672593. You’re off by that much. Yeah don’t actually look at how we arrive at any of these values. Don’t show us anything about that other blog post from NBC news. Don’t look at any primary literature, where science is actually reported. Don’t

discuss an ounce of methodology, or math, or an any actual science. Just giggle like toddlers and pretend that a Nobel laureate in astrophysics would somehow agree with you that all of astrophysics is wrong. But he just, you know Fred, he talks about creationists trying to learn the vernacular so we can pretend, but he’s just regurgitating vernacular that he’s imbibed, and he’s really pretending. Yeah, yep. No, sweetie. I actually took astronomy courses in college. That’s how I was able to make an astronomy series explaining basic astronomy. Other people are educated and actually understand things. I know

that hurts your feelings, but it’s true. And you can buy our fantastic video on evidences against the big bang, it’s in my top two of all the videos that we provide through our store, and that’s at rsr.org/store. So please consider getting that if you haven’t. It supports our radio and youtube ministry. And as we try to reach as many people as we can. And that video has evidence that’s just undeniable. It’s crystal clear. The big bang is just not true. There’s way too many things that, it’s not just evidence against the big bang Doug, there’s

things that just outright falsify it. Right. Ok, so in this video where you are supposed to be debunking the things I said about big bang cosmology, you are going to make no attempt to do that at all, you’re just linking to some other video that people have to pay for, which has all of this awesome evidence that you are totally unwilling to summarize here, but it’s all undeniable because trust me bro. Got it. Then there is the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe, which is about three to one. That there is so much

helium indicates that the universe was once hot enough to fuse protons and neutrons, which is explained by the nucleosynthesis aspect of the big bang model. No other model can account for this observation in general, and they certainly cannot account for this precise ratio that is specifically predicted by the duration of the nucleosynthesis epoch as demanded by the model. So this is a classic case of cherry picking data and molding it to fit the alleged prediction. A paper in Nature magazine describes the particulars of this prediction as “assumed ad hoc to obtain the required or predicted

abundances”. And then there’s a thing in Physics Essays that “the study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a big bang universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. Adjusted how? From what to what? What are these references? When I go to your website the links are broken. Did you make up these quotes? I can’t find anything about this prediction being adjusted. Funny how you morons never offer anything more than vaguely pointing at

something and pretending it supports the lies you tell, huh? And David James says no other model can explain duh du duh du duh. How can you say that? How can you say that no other model can explain, as if you’ve reviewed every model, and every possible model that could, that’s just, that’s the kind of hyperbole that you warned people about in the beginning. I can say that because it’s objectively true, dumbass. Show me another cosmological model that mechanistically explains the distribution of the elements in the cosmos. Oh you can’t do it, because “god did it”

isn’t science? That’s what I thought. Finally there is the cosmic microwave background radiation. Something that was specifically predicted by big bang cosmology and then subsequently observed. This is a perfect blackbody spectrum permeating the cosmos which is a remnant of the recombination epoch, when electrons first coupled with atomic nuclei and relaxed to the ground state, emitting photons, and causing the universe to become transparent for the first time. This occurred 380,000 years after the initial singularity, and since has been stretched out by the expansion of the universe to measure 2.7 Kelvin with extreme isotropy, meaning the same

in every direction. Ok first of all, the CMB prediction is an example of historical revisionism. But you know what Fred, we could give that one to him. Right? We could give that one to the big bang evolutionist side that David James represents. And we can talk about the scores of predictions the big bang has failed on. Ok just to name a few, Fred. An entire universe of missing antimatter. Where’s that, David James? Ok, so the discovery of the CMB is historical revisionism because he says so, even though no it fucking isn’t, and then instead of

addressing anything I said, they just jump back to their website with a bunch of unrelated random shit, starting with a “universe of antimatter”, which doesn’t mean anything. Some propose that a kind of quantum fluctuation involving some portion of matter and antimatter followed by their subsequent collision and annihilation is what triggered the initial expansion, with a slight asymmetry of matter over antimatter resulting in the matter we see in the universe today. Big bang cosmology does not predict a universe of antimatter. What is the point of making a video when you say absolutely nothing except go look

at our website over and over again? At the end of the clip he said that the CMB shows extreme isotropy. Yeah. So extreme, Doug. So he’s wrong yet again. David James, you’re wrong again, and that’s because of what secular astronomers have coined, and you mentioned it here recently Doug, you said the axis of evil. They call it evil because it totally upends their entire big bang cosmology model. No, it doesn’t. That’s just a dumb creationist talking point. It’s a name given to an unsubstantiated correlation between the plane of the solar system and the CMB. The

statistical significance is minimal, and there are plenty of explanations that are much better than pretending the earth or sun are the center of the universe like these bozos desperately want to believe, such as noise, an artifact, or something physical in the plane of the solar system. Sorry to plug up your swiss cheese with reality, kiddo. Ok, on to part two, where apparently I am exposed! By the way, they are still fumbling through the first of my five videos. Let’s see if they can do a little better here. They will say something like where are all

the population three stars, why can’t we see them anywhere? Of course the model proposes that they are predominately long gone, so they should for the most part only be detectable in galaxies that are so far away that the light we receive from them was emitted in a time when population three stars were still around and dominated their galactic landscape. In fact, recent observational evidence for population three stars has been collected in distant quasars. It’s simply very difficult to collect such data and has only been possible rather recently with the most sophisticated space-based telescopes. He says

that they’ve found population three stars with the latest space-based telescopes. Right. But Doug, when I do even just a cursory research of this claim, you find that it’s really speculative and there’s tons of data that’s missing. If the helium two results stand up to scrutiny one possibility is a cluster of population three stars. However, he goes on to say he’s unsure if population three stars and later stars could mix together so readily. So, and there’s another guy the article mentions, Daniel Whalen, he’s an astrophysicist at the University of Portsmouth, and he was similarly cautious and

said it’s not clean evidence, because other piping hot cosmic objects can produce a similar helium two signal. This is all these morons can do. They have to pretend that science debunks science, so they cherry pick SOME science, vaguely gesture at it with zero context, and pretend that it contradicts all of science. What are these people talking about, morons? Why are there so many ellipses? What are you cutting out and why? Are they talking about one specific observation, and are you extrapolating that to the detection of pop three stars in general? Let’s just do a google

search, and immediately confirm that plenty of evidence for pop three stars has been gathered. Separate threads of evidence from separate research teams. Misrepresenting one study does not debunk that study, and it sure as hell does not debunk all the rest. Toss pop three stars into google scholar. That sure looks like a lot of people talking about pop three stars we definitely did detect. But do continue pretending that quote mining one magazine article is worth more than all of astrophysics. It’s adorable. The accepted value of 4.54 bilion years plus or minus 50 million years is well

substantiated by geology. Namely radiometric dating of zircon crystals and also carbonaceous chondrite meteorites. Ok. Wow. Ok. Actually as it turns out he didn’t even really mention a true creationist talking point on this because I’m gonna list one for him. He mentions zircons. But he doesn’t wanna tell his audience of a huge gigantic elephant in the room, which is that these zircons have helium in them. Now this Professor Dave is pretty well-versed on the creationist arguments. You can tell that by watching his videos. I’ve watched so far his first three installments, so he knows a lot

of our arguments, so I have a feeling he knows this one, he just doesn’t wanna talk about it because the evidence is overwhelming. And what it is, helium is a light noble gas. It’s very slippery. The problem is we find helium in those zircons. The helium should have diffused out of those zircons millions and millions of years ago. Oh yeah? Should it have? Why? Because it’s “slippery”? What does that mean? How fast should it diffuse? Would that rate change? Why would it change, maybe based on temperature? What is the thermal history of these crystals? How

much helium is found in there and where did it come from? Did it come from the uranium decay which produced all the lead in there which demonstrates the accepted age of the earth? Funny how you refuse to even touch that, the actual evidence, but whine about something totally tangential, and don’t substantiate anything you say whatsoever. It might work on your brainless flock, but not on people with brains. I love how the confidence with which he states the age of the Earth at 4.54 billion years plus or minus 50 million years. Throws that in there just

because nobody can check that. It just makes him seem like he has more data. I don’t know Fred. It’s the illusion of precision. 4.54, and then they contradict themselves by saying plus or minus 50 million years. It’s called a margin of error you fucking idiots. Every single measurement necessarily has one. It’s the critical value times the standard deviation divided by the root of the sample size. That a margin of error exists has nothing to do with the precision available to us for any given measurement. Way to announce to everyone that you’re clueless twats who have

never gathered or analyzed data a single time in your entire pointless lives. Also, way to fixate on zircon crystals and dodge all the meteorites I mentioned. That doesn’t make you look like disingenuous frauds at all. They will say that decay rates have changed over time. This is totally baseless. Decay rates are based on the inherent stability of nuclides which have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of external environmental conditions. Nuclides decay at precisely the same rate in a vacuum as they do under any set of external stimuli. Anyway Fred, I can’t let that go

by without noting the extra words, decay rates have nothing at all to do with anything at all to do with anything related to anything related to external, just too many words there! I’m not sure. Uh, I didn’t say anything like that. I said “which have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of external environmental conditions”. It’s a perfectly constructed sentence. You’re just too stupid to know how words work, and you can’t refute what I said, so you’re making up something dumb as a deflection. And you morons whine about “straw men”. Holy shit. And how can

you say that it’s not affected by any external, I mean how do you know that? That’s just so ridiculous to state it like that. Um, by measuring decay rates in all kinds of environmental conditions and observing that they are constant. And also by having any clue about nuclear physics, the weak nuclear force, what radioactive decay is, how it is a first order process, and just generally not being a science illiterate incredulous toolbox. We need to get him Walt Brown’s book on radioactivity, right? There’s documented evidence for examples of electrical mechanisms that speed up radioactive decay

like a billion fold. Nope. You pulled that directly out of your rectum. Saying “there is a book” isn’t evidence. We did not have radioactivity before the flood, because radioactivity is harmful. And it definitely wasn’t in the creation event because after god finished creating everything was very good. There was no way you’d have radioactivity that causes birth defects. I mean right now you and I are being bombarded with some radioactivity and our bodies are decaying and over time we’re gonna, our lives are gonna cease on this Earth, and thank Jesus we’ll be with him for all

eternity. Amen. There’s that crippling fear of mortality that is responsible for your entire infantile worldview. Saying there was no radioactivity at some point in history just demonstrates that you don’t know what radioactivity is. It’s an inherent property of particular nuclides. Virtually every single element on the periodic table has at least one radioactive isotope. As long as atoms have existed, radioactivity has existed. Here's a quote from an evolutionist physicist. So this isn’t a talking point from creationists. So again, Prof Dave is not telling you about what their own evolutionist says. So this is a guy named

Frederic B. Jueneman. And this comes from the industrial research and development. And here’s what he said. “There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences”. First of all, what the hell is an evolutionist physicist? Again, evolutionist is not a word, but to use it in reference to a physicist is just completely idiotic. Physicists don’t study evolutionary biology, dumbass. But of course the important thing is that he’s just making a blind argument from authority. Some guy said this thing,

so it must be true. That would of course be assuming that this is a real scientist who actually said this. I know instantly that no scientist has ever said this, because “radio decay rate” doesn’t mean anything, they just made it up. Just to be sure, I googled the text of this quote and got nothing, so no help there. But more importantly, if this were true, regardless of who said it, you could find any information whatsoever about decay rates varying according to environmental conditions. You can’t, because they don’t. That atomic clocks could be “reset” because of

a flood is totally idiotic and meaningless, which is why they don’t even attempt to explain that mechanistically. This whole section can be summarized as some guy we made up said a thing we made up, so science is wrong. Astounding. Within the age and memory of man. What say you Prof Dave? I say you’re the two biggest losers on the internet, and you’re even worse at this than Kent Hovind. The University of Colorado at Boulder, let’s go somewhere like that, and randomly ask students how we know the age of the Earth, and I submit far more

often than not, they will mention carbon dating and not radiometric dating. I hear this all the time from laypersons on really on both sides, from both creationists and evolutionists, or I should say Christians and evolutionists, because a lot of Christians are not versed on creation science, and we’re trying to eradicate that, because we think it’s important to be able to always give a defense for the hope that lies within you and having the knowledge of creation is a good thing to have. So the point is laypersons will almost always say carbon dating. And yet you

act like it’s only the creationists that do that. Only the Christians. That’s totally not true, and I can prove you wrong, if you’re willing to take that bet Dave, you get five thousand bucks if you’re right! If I’m right you just have to slip over a C note to me. Are you willing to take that bet Professor Dave? Oh you’re not? I didn’t think so. Yes, I would take that bet. But it’s cute how you immediately admit that you’re really just talking to yourself. Do you know why I would take this bet? Because you’re too

stupid to structure it in a way that makes sense, so I will immediately win. Once again, evolutionist doesn’t mean anything, so I can decide what it means and skew the data however I want. Then, you said they will mention carbon dating and not radiometric dating. Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating, so it is physically impossible to mention carbon dating without mentioning radiometric dating, which means that precisely zero people will do that. And third, most Christians aren’t science denying asshats like you, so they will give the same answers as whatever you are pretending evolutionist

means. Pay up, numbnuts. Starting around fifth grade, at least if you go back to when I was in the public schools, the implication was that radiocarbon dating was the reason we knew the age of the Earth. Age of everything. And perhaps I’m willing to give them the idea that radiocarbon dating is just a shorthand for all radiometric dating. You know we do that with language, we use one term to describe an array of things. So I’m willing to give them that. Holy hell, after all of that bullshit, this moron is now flat out admitting that

he thought he was taught that the age of the earth is determined by carbon dating. Is this guy completely braindead? And no, radiocarbon dating is not a shorthand for all radiometric dating. It’s a specific kind of radiometric dating. The kind that uses carbon. Do you know what carbon is? Did you interview for this sidekick position or did you win a contest at church camp or something? One of the things he’s right about, Fred, is the very short half life of carbon 14. Well relatively short. A lot longer than my life. But it’s relatively short when

you look at his 4.54 billion year plus or minus 50 million year timeframe, it’s relatively short. Where you shouldn’t find much if any carbon 14 if the item is 50,000 years old or older. So without telling his audience he’s avoiding yet another huge hole in the cheese, Fred. And that’s the fact that carbon 14 is everywhere. It’s everywhere it shouldn’t be. It’s found in diamonds mined from deep beneath the earth’s surface, it’s found in dinosaur bones, it’s found in oil and coal, all these things that should be millions of years old have all this carbon

14. How much carbon-14 is in those things, kiddo? Use numbers. And why shouldn’t it be there? We limit our dating methods to ten half lives because when the concentrations dip below that, our ability to do calculations becomes less reliable. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any in there at all. Does he have any clue how many half lives would have to elapse before the amount of carbon-14 present is totally undetectable? Of course not, that would involve doing math. Also, bombardment of nitrogen by cosmic rays is not the only mechanism by which carbon-14 is produced. There are

others. And of course things like diamonds are not living organisms that eat and breathe, so we wouldn’t look at carbon-14 to date them. These morons don’t even know what carbon dating is. As careful as possible and you’re still gonna find carbon atoms with carbon’s half life of roughly 5700 years, there should be, the carbon atoms should be all gone usually after 50,000 years you’re lucky to find one or two, so… Lucky to find one or two! This is the dumbest sentence this moron has said so far. First of all, he is pretending that we could

detect one or two atoms, and regularly do that when analyzing samples. That’s already quite stupid. But much dumber than that is his inability to do basic math. We don’t even have to look at the actual equations that are used to do these calculations. Just exercise basic logic. Let’s say there was one gram of carbon-14 in some object upon its formation. That would be a fourteenth of a mole, or 4.3 times 10 to the 22 atoms. That’s 43 billion trillion atoms. How many would be left after 10 half lives, or around 50 thousand years? Divide by

two ten times, and we are left with 4.2 times 10 to the 19 atoms. That’s 42 million trillion. That’s a lot more than one or two, genius. Let’s go another ten half lives, or another 50 thousand years. 4.1 times 10 to the 16. Still a lot! How many half lives would have to elapse in order to get all the way down to just one atom? Maybe Freddy and Dougy can figure out how to do that math, huh? I won’t hold my breath. And by the way Fred, I can’t let this moment pass without addressing the

screaming child graphic that is ubiquitous throughout Professor Dave’s videos. If I’m not mistaken, Professor Dave is implying that the screaming child with the fists in the air and the squinted scrunched eyes obviously in a rage, I think he’s implying that that’s us. I think. But he may not realize that the opposite implication comes across. That’s him. He’s got his fists in the air and his eyes clenched and his ears closed so that he doesn’t have to see and so that he doesn’t have to hear all the evidence against old earth big bang cosmology, evolution, and

his entire worldview. There is no such evidence, morons. You’re just lying the whole time. You are indeed the screaming toddler who pretends that all of science is wrong just because it hurts your feelings. Your stupidity is on full display even during little tantrums like this, where you exclaim that this clipart character has “squinty scrunched eyes”. These are his eyebrows you fucking idiot. If these things were eyes, what the fuck would these things be? The circle within a circle, could that be a pupil and an eyeball? You can’t even recognize basic shapes. You’re more clueless than

a toddler. Do you go to the bathroom by yourself or do you need help with that too? The projection is off the charts. Which internet hack uses a false moniker to promote fake science often using straw men, hyperbole, and fairy tales to dupe his audience? That would be you two dipshits using the moniker “real science radio”, when nothing you say is real, you have no idea what science is, and also are not on the radio. Great work, morons. Ok, on to part three! This one says I am a fake science purveyor? Oh my goodness! How

will they fumble literally everything in this one? Let’s find out. And it’s on uhbiogenesis. His second video installment is on uhbiogenesis. And Doug, before we dive into that I wanted to mention from last week’s show, in part one of his video there is a part at the end that we skipped because it’s just the usual storytelling but I did wanna mention it. He repeats the old canard that there’s no evidence for a global flood. And this is despite literally scores of evidence to the contrary. And maybe one of the most popular, because it’s easy to

understand, and that’s the fact that you find marine life on all the major mountain ranges. Ok, so he can’t pronounce abiogenesis. That’s a bad start. And since origin of life research is quite difficult to understand, it will be adorable to watch these morons try to say literally anything coherent about it. But this comment about a global flood is also quite pathetic. Scores of evidence, he says! No, there is literally none, which is why the singular thing you bring up is insanely stupid. Ancient ocean life dies and is fossilized, then an orogeny occurs, or an event

in which a mountain range is formed due to plate tectonics. The ocean crust gets pushed up and becomes mountains. It’s not that hard to understand, and it’s something you could have learned in ten seconds of googling. On to the uh-biogenesis! As most of you are aware, there’s only one apologist fraud in the entire world who understands chemistry well enough to lie convincingly about origin of life research, and that’s James Tour. Obviously these two clueless twat waffles have zero ability to discuss even a single stitch of this research, so they spend most of this video just

slobbering all over James’s nuts and issuing an empty argument from authority, pretending that he has debunked me, when in fact I have debunked him harder than anyone has ever been debunked in the history of the internet, which is why he’s a shell of his former self and doesn’t talk about origin of life research anymore. That’s what happens when you become the laughing stock of the internet. So let’s just skip those bits since it would be quite redundant to just rehash my other content exposing James and his pathetic script of lies. Oh I can’t resist, just

one little bit where they are talking about my debate with him at Rice. It was painful. It was as if it was basically an adult and a bratty adolescent. Mr. Farina! Mr. Farina! Mr. Farina! Bratty adolescent indeed. Funny how this shrieking toddler maniac is still your hero anyway, huh? I guess we call that hypocrisy. Moving on! You take that enzyme and subject it to random mutations. Out of the hundreds of mutants one offers 10% yield and 20% specificity. Isolate and repeat the process. After 15 rounds of this you have your perfect enzyme. There was no

design involved. Simply random mutation and selection. Wow Doug. Unbelievable. Notice what he said there, they will isolate then rerun the mutations. They’ll isolate them. So this is one of the ways, this is also referred to as truncation selection by biologists, something that, it doesn’t happen in nature. Here come the giggle fits! Ever notice how the less of a clue apologists have about a particular thing, the more they laugh while talking about it? Yeah, there was no design. It was mutation and selection. Rerun the mutations? Mutation isn’t a program you run, dumbass. It’s just a natural

process. We isolate things so that we can use them for our purposes. Nature doesn’t have to isolate anything, it just does what it does. Mutation and selection. Mutation and selection. Learn what these words mean. In the bioengineering example we do the selecting. In natural systems, nature does the selecting. Got it? You not only need ideal temperatures and pH, but it has to be fast. It has to be fast. So what origin of life researchers do is they immediately stop the experiment. They terminate the experiment when they get just what they want, because if it goes

like one second longer, it would immediately scramble whatever they come up with. It’s just, talk about sleight of hand. This is my favorite area of science to watch apologists fumble. It’s so painfully apparent that these two buffoons have no idea what they’re talking about. What has to be fast, moron? What are you even referring to? Do you know what peptides are? Do you know the chemistry of peptide formation? What experiment does who stop? One second longer of what scrambles what? What in the sweet fuck are you talking about? Obviously you’re too stupid to actually examine

primary literature in this field, so let’s just look at the dumb slide you’re showing without actually explaining or referencing in any way. Five requirements, would that be you just regurgitating James Tour’s dumb challenge that’s been debunked a thousand times? I assume you mean longest peptides possible, why longest? Even di- and tripeptides have catalytic function. Use only glycine? No, all proteinogenic amino acids have been shown to couple under a variety of prebiotic conditions. Careful design? For the thousandth time, they do this shit in hot springs. They toss in the monomers and let them polymerize by wet-dry

cycling. Ideal temperature and pH? Yeah, the ones from nature, where life arose. Rapid mixing? What? Chemically modified peptide end groups? I assume he’s referring to solid state peptide synthesis which has absolutely fucking nothing to do with origin of life research. People who synthesize polypeptides for industry don’t care about prebiotic relevance. Laboratory solvents? Try water, dipshits. Purification and separation? That’s so we can characterize things. We have to isolate compounds so we can see what happened. We can’t see molecules with our eyeballs. We have to run stuff through machines and get data to know for sure what

happened. Nature doesn’t have to do that. It just does what it does. I explained all of this in the video you don’t seem to have actually watched. And this cute little chart offers zero context and is thus totally meaningless. Epic fail. And that’s why Dr. Royal Truman said that people who are professional chemists, they don’t deal with this because it’s embarrassing to them. You get a few that are atheists and they wanna promote origin of life research, and as Lee Cronin who is a secular scientist from Harvard, he said it’s a scam. We agree with

him. We agree. Guys, mindlessly repeating Tour’s disgraceful misprepresentation of this Lee Cronin tweet does not make you look any less slimy or disingenuous. Actually what you end up with is a pile of enzymes that don’t really do anything, is what you end up if you just let nature run its course. Or you end up with a javelin. Remember that car? Even worse, a gremlin. Yeah gremlin, oh yeah! You can tell that these idiots have no idea what an enzyme is, not just because an enzyme that doesn’t do anything wouldn’t be called an enzyme, so by

definition it can’t exist, but also because they always always always desperately jump to some pathetic analogy about cars or something, since they do know what cars are. Molecules aren’t cars, Skippy. Just because you don’t understand how nature makes molecules, it doesn’t mean chemistry is fake. We can’t force molecules to do things in a lab that they don’t do in nature under the same conditions. Yep. He’s totally missing the point here, Doug, obviously. And he says it’s highly dishonest. Well it’s the fact that, here’s the point he’s totally missing. That even when you use manipulation in

the lab, which they’re doing, they’re manipulating things in the lab to try to prove origin of life research. You still even with all that manipulation, you can’t get anything more than a miniscule amount of a small peptide. That’s all you can get. And that’s with them cheating to get there. It’s a scam. That’s right Fred, it’s a miniscule relatively useless chunk of what might be a peptide. What do you mean cheating? Small amount of peptide where, from who? Who are you talking about? Name scientists. Show studies. Manipulating what, and how? A small chunk of what

might be a peptide? What the fuck does that even mean? A polypeptide is a polymer of amino acids. So a chunk of that is just a smaller polymer of amino acids, which is the same thing. Or I guess it could be one amino acid. Do you even know what amino acids are? What amount of what peptide has to form under strict prebiotic conditions for you to admit that we know how peptides can have initially formed? Are you even aware that you’re saying literally nothing? I got tired of screaming into a void about this several years

ago, but once again, prebiotic polypeptide formation is not even remotely a mystery. It’s a slam dunk. Wet-dry cycling in hot springs or other small bodies of water, as well as direct coupling via a multitude of prebiotically plausible activating agents. I’ve showed all of this research in my content endlessly debunking James Tour, and neither him nor either of you asshats have the intellect or integrity to discuss any of it. Randomness left to itself Doug, it always leads to zero information. He has no idea what he’s talking about when he talks about information. And we’re gonna play

a clip here in a second. And he’s pretending that if you have enough time, and enough material, that it’ll just happen. But that’s just pretending. That’s just Alice in Wonderland. And we’re not going to let him get away with it here. No, I explained the basics of systems chemistry and autocatalysis for about ten minutes in my video, by which some proportion of random sequences happen to perform some function, and then those sequences are selected for and refined over time. It’s very obvious why you’re only commenting on about two minutes of this half hour video. Because

you don’t understand anything I’m talking about and have nothing to say. Just like James Tour, when confronted with the reality of systems chemistry, autocatalysis, the work of researchers like Gerald Joyce, all you can do is put your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesn’t exist, the thing you ironically accuse me of doing. Triple stamp a double stamp, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp Lloyd! Alright, on to the fourth and final part of this pathetic series! Ooh, the final knockdown! They haven’t landed a single punch yet in two hours of content, so I’m not

sure how this knockdown is gonna happen, but let’s give them a chance. I’d also like to point out that they’ve used three videos to go over the first two videos of the five in my series. They’ve pretended to cover only one hour of my three hour series, and that was scattershot at best. So that they have only video left means they completely dodged the vast majority of the rest of the series, which was the real firepower about evolutionary and molecular biology. But let’s take a look at the handful of things they decided to whine about.

And the reason we plan to use less time is because much of what Professor Dave presents in these last three videos, Doug, has already been refuted like many many times over on Real Science Radio, we’ve talked about these topics ad nauseam in some cases. So we’ll provide a summary list of all the factual errors in Professor Dave’s videos with links to the RSR web page that we’ve created for these shows, and that’s gonna be at RSR.org/professordavefactcheck. You can go there and click on links to all of the things he claims and we’ll provide a rebuttal

to those claims or refutation to those claims. That’s right, we’ve pretended to debunk these things before, so we don’t have to pretend to do it again! Just go to this website and look at the page where we misspelled professor and then copy pasted a bunch of crap that doesn’t in any way refute anything Dave said. Go team! Furthermore new enzymes don’t have to function optimally. They can perform a function with moderate efficiency and then get refined by natural selection over time. And finally, we know for a fact that many different sequences can perform the same

function, because different organisms have different versions of the same enzymes. Ok Doug, a couple things to unpack here. So first, evolutionists assume new enzymes are created by gene duplication. That’s one of the huge tenets of their theory, so… This is all you need to see in order to know that these morons have no idea what’s happening. They played a clip of me responding to the creationist claim that functional sequences are ridiculously rare. I explained that no they aren’t, they are pretending that only one particular sequence can perform a particular function. I explained how enzymatic function

is refined over time, and also that different species have different versions of the same enzyme with slightly different sequences. Then this douchenozzle jumps to gene duplication, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Ok, loser. What do you have to say about this totally separate topic? There is substantial evidence that gene duplication has led to the evolution of new functional genes across various organisms, with research highlighting its role in adaptation and evolutionary novelty. So here’s the supporting evidence that AI generated. Studies across diverse species have identified cases where duplicated genes have

evolved distinct functions, often related to environmental adaptations or specialized cellular processes. Ok, well let’s see. Then it lists examples. The first one it lists, globin genes in humans. The different globin proteins involved in oxygen transport are thought to have arisen from gene duplication events. So Doug, does that sound like evidence? They are thought to have arisen from gene duplication events. Evidence can’t be thought to have, can it? No! Is that really evidence? They’re thought to have. They’re assuming evolution is true. Oh cool, the old “you didn’t watch it happen so you don’t know” song and

dance. Morons, we do genomic analysis, and we notice multiple copies of the same gene with slight variation, which is perfectly explained by gene duplication and neofunctionalization. We observe gene duplication. We observe mutation. We take our understanding of these phenomena and we build models that explain things. That’s how science works. Do bears defecate in the woods? Yeah. If we find bear shit in the woods, is that evidence that a bear took a shit there? Yeah. You can feel free to come up with an alternate hypothesis, but I’m gonna stick with the most obvious explanation based on

what we know about bears, and shit, especially after analyzing the shit to determine that it matches shit from other bears that all eat the same things in those woods. By all means, continue to brandish this hyper-skepticism you’re trying on like a new hat you just bought and definitely can’t pull off, since you didn’t physically see the bear shitting, but then you’d have to explain why you blindly believe all the dumb crap about the magic sky daddy you’ve never seen and whom you’ve never watched make all the stuff you think he made. Whoops. And the immune

system is designed to be that way. It’s not something that evolved. And so it’s using something that isn’t evolution. It has nothing to do with evolving new genes. It’s really adorable how you just pretend that evolutionary biology makes baseless assertions, like that certain proteins arose via gene duplication, when in fact this is very well empirically substantiated, and then turn right around and say things like “the immune system is designed to be that way”. Why? Because you say so? Because you need for that to be true so you can avoid thinking about how you’re going to

die? That’s not how science works, grampa. Proteins are products of gene expression. Genomes evolve over time. Thus, so do proteins. It’s not that hard to understand. Professor Dave says that natural selection is then free to refine the enzymes over time. This of course is more just so storytelling with no evidence to support it, unless you wanna count their circular reasoning as evidence. You know as Dr. John Sanford has eloquently laid out, natural selection can’t select enzymes, it only works at the organism level. It can only select like an entire person or organism. Dear god they

just keep getting dumber. No shit natural selection will select organisms. And if an organism happens to have a mutated enzyme, and that organism successfully breeds, guess what their offspring has a 50% chance of getting? That mutated enzyme. If the mutation bestows a survival advantage, this increases the probability that the organism with that mutation will survive and breed. That’s how novel genes can be selected for. By virtue of the enhanced fitness bestowed upon the organism and the subsequent greater probability of reproducing. This is middle school level biology you’re fumbling, dumbass. But hey! I said the name

of a guy! That refutes all of biology! Breathtaking. And here’s the thing. Many types of cancers have been traced back to mutations that were caused by, guess, what a gene mutation, a gene duplication, a mutation that caused gene duplication. Gene duplication isn’t caused by a point mutation you moron. It’s an error enacted by the replicative machinery. What you’re saying is total gibberish. And that gene duplication can cause cancer is totally irrelevant. If a mutation is harmful enough to dramatically lower the fitness of the organism, it’ll probably die and not reproduce, so the mutation is wiped

out of the gene pool. I know you guys make fun of flat earthers, but you are genuinely as dumb as them. That none of these enzymes have a common ancestor. Go back and watch our show, right you remember, go back, you can watch our show last May with Sal Cordova, remember he got atheist Aron Ra to like scream out in something like horror, proteins do not have an ancestor. It had to be something like horror because of the profanity that I’ve edited out. Anyway so that’s game over, Fred. Well I have no clue what you’re

referring to and I refuse to go find it, but it sounds like Aron got frustrated by either you or another loser creationist repeatedly saying something as idiotic as “enzymes don’t have a common ancestor”, since that is totally meaningless. Enzymes are not living organisms. That a smart person got annoyed by your stupidity doesn’t make you any less wrong and dumb. And of course you make no attempt to explain what that could possibly mean, so I guess we’re moving on. Well if it’s a theory, it’s a theory that’s been falsified. In order for something to be a

theory it has to be falsifiable, well guess what, it’s been falsified. No, evolutionary theory is verified every day as we observe evolution happening every day. Sorry. Significantly harmful mutations are not often observed because those organisms tend to die quickly without reproducing. So we disporportionately observe beneficial mutations and improved function, which can appear like design to the unprepated mind. Unbelievable. So Doug, this is laughably false. The vast majority of documented random mutations are considered at best near neutral. And when they say near neutral they mean slightly harmful, Doug. That’s right there, near neutral, near neutral, ok

slightly harmful. It’s easy to find secular scientists in his aisle, in Professor Dave’s side of the debate who would dispute his claim. And so Doug here’s a quote from the NIH, you know PubMed, it says in fact most mutations with observable phenotypic effects are deleterious, which means most are harmful. Can you dumb fucks even read? I am seriously asking you if you are physically able to read. What did my graphic say? Harmful mutations do not persist. The ones you referencing are the ones that would not persist in a population of organisms and thus would not

be broadly observed in nature. These ones, from the paper you didn’t read and don’t have a shot in hell at understanding. Those would be the ones that are described by this first part at the top of my graphic. They would not persist. They would be selected against. The ones that do persist are the ones we observe in populations of extant organisms, and they persisted because they are beneficial or at least benign, so they are selected for and proliferate within that gene pool. I wish so badly that you had the cognitive ability to comprehend how badly

you are humiliating yourselves. Nature creates many sequences, stumbles upon functional sequences by chance, and those are optimized and amplified by natural selection. Plenty of research has been done which corroborates the fact that totally random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNA and peptides. This is not controversial. No, it’s not. This is not controversial. No, no. So Doug, this is totally misleading. It really shows how desperate they are when they are trying to appeal to randomness like Professor Dave does. Ok assholes, well I’ve presented loads of primary scientific literature that thoroughly demonstrates the exact thing

I’m describing, like work from Szostak highlighting the precise proportion of random sequences that have some function, as well as observing random sequences evolving de novo promoters, and plenty of other research you’re too stupid to comprehend, so all your giggling and saying absolutely nothing is really convincing, but I’m going to just continue knowing what the fuck I’m talking about. What a few scientists did was they inserted some random RNA into the cell of an already existing gene, and notice that some gene regulation activity changed. Ok? This is Terrence Howard level gibberish. Somebody inserted RNA into the

cell of a gene? That is literally meaningless, so no they fucking didn’t. That’s why you’re not showing a paper, you’re just saying words that anyone who got a B or better in high school biology can immediately tell are made up. Genes don’t have cells, dumbass. Cells have genes. And the genomes of everything alive are made of DNA, not RNA, so you’re not going to be inserting any RNA into any gene, not that you have any clue how genome modification actually occurs in the first place. And finally, this was supposed to have something to do with

random sequences producing novel function, since that’s what you were just whining about, and of course this is totally unrelated. Do you see why everyone makes fun of you? For example these HOX genes, mutations in these genes he says could lead to evolution of new functions. Such as creatures in an aquatic habitat developing webbed feet, but if you listen and watch you’ll notice, Fred, the examples he provides are all harmful. Like a fly growing legs instead of antennae, people with deformed figures. Apparently you did not listen and watch, Dougy, because I very clearly explained how extremities

have webbing during embryonic development and then specific cells undergo apoptosis in order for individual digits to take shape. Therefore, mutations that prevent those cells from dying will result in webbing remaining between the digits. You just jumped to unrelated examples of other things I mentioned because you have the integrity of an empty cardboard box. This all leads him then to embryology where he shows Hackel’s fake drawings! This should be the stake in the heart of David James professorship. Oh my gosh, I showed the thing that all creationists are conditioned into flipping out about even though they

have no idea why, so that I can specifically explain to you how dumb you are for doing that! Oh no! What Haeckel correctly showed was that all chordates go through a phylotypic, or pharyngula stage, where the embryos of animals as diverse as elephants and sharks look extremely similar. Yeah Doug, I guess I’m not really surprised that his image, the one he uses, is from Haeckel’s fake drawings. Yeah! Well they aren’t fake drawings, they’re just drawings. Do you know what a drawing is? This is what embryos look like, as can be confirmed with modern imaging technology.

This “claim” you’re referencing with text here is an objective fact. You’re saying absolutely nothing, and then just flashing photos from a bogus creationist study that misrepresents animal embryos. Like this salamander embryo. This bloated beach ball thing is the yolk sac. It’s not part of the embryo. Haeckel’s drawings were all done of embryos without yolk, allantois, and amnion. And of course this is all right after showing a clip of decent length where I explain how embryonic development makes zero sense in any context other than evolution, and you completely ignored it, just so you can whine about

Haeckel with zero basis. Pathetic. He also brings up this whole long refuted myth about the humans having a tail, and you know real scientists and surgeons have been saying for decades that this is false, totally not true. So there’s a structure that drops off, it serves like a scaffolding, much like the mold to an arch, and it’s removed once an arch is finished. So they look at those and says oh that’s remnants of a tail. It’s a tail, dumbasses. This is a human embryo. This is a tail. He goes on to whine about fully developed

humans, and what some surgeon said. Nobody said humans have tails once fully developed. The coccyx is a vestigial structure. We are talking about embryonic development. There is a tail. It goes away. Why would it form only to then go away? That’s the point, brainiac. Now how about some trivia? Which Austrain botanist laid the mathematical foundation of the science of genetics. Ok so, now what was the nationality of that botanist again? Austria. Austrai. So that’s where you lost me, was at Austrian botanist. Yeah he’s basically the father of genetics you could say. He laid the mathematical

foundation. Oh this is one that once you say it I’m gonna feel so dumb that I didn’t know. Am I allowed to ask for help? I got no help. I got no help, Fred. You got no help. Let’s see, was it Arnold Schwarzenegger? I like the guess though. It’s Gregor Mendel. Mendel, oh! See? I feel like a moron. You should feel like a moron, because you are a gigantic moron. If you don’t know who Mendel is, you know literally zero things about genetics. Mendelian genetics is the thing we all learn about in 9th grade when

we learn the absolute first things about genetics and heredity we ever knew. These dipshits are pretending to debunk the entire field of evolutionary genetics while fumbling trivia questions about genetics that 14 year olds would roll their eyes at, in their own content. You can’t make this shit up. This is almost as cringy as their lame jokes that are just thinly veiled sexism. I thought the most abundant in a shopping mall would be females. That’s good! Women be shopping, baby. Women be shopping. Women sure do be shopping. Can you imagine being married to either of these

douchebags? Anyway, the rest of the video is a lightning round of them referencing random things and pretending to respond to them, some of which are phrases from my video, some of which aren’t. The second one is this claim about a cow giving birth to a sheep, I never talked about this so I have no clue what they’re even trying to pull off here. Although I’m sure they know that none of their idiot followers have the courage to watch my content and have no idea what’s in it, so these two can just lie right to their

faces and they will never be the wiser. There’s a lot of people who want to be lied to because it makes them feel better about themselves. Well said, Dougy. Well said. Anyway, let’s just lightning round the rest of their pathetic lightning round. Here they whine about me debunking their idiotic claim that there is no junk DNA, and their response is to again just baselessly reassert that there is no junk DNA by vaguely referencing the titles of blog posts and repeating the bullshit I debunked. Again, that some non-coding sequences were found to have function, doesn’t change

the fact that most of it has no function. Then they flash this claim that the bacterial flagellum has an injectisome. No, dumbasses, they are separate structures, the latter of which is a reduced structure of the former. You take away parts of the flagellum to get the injectisome. Patently absurd statement, the bacterial flagellum and injectisome, Fred these are two different machines, that differ in both their structure and their function. Yeah, kind of like exactly what I said, jackass. One of them evolved from the other, proving that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. Then they revisit the

random sequences evolve function thing they had a tantrum about earlier, and sorry guys, that’s still objectively and empirically correct, as demonstrated by all the studies I’ve presented so many times that you’re incapable of reading or responding to. And this has to be I think, he said a lot of dumb things, but this has gotta be the dumbest thing he said. If it’s so dumb then you can tell me what’s wrong with all these studies where this exact thing happens, eh dipshit? No? Won’t even try? That’s what I thought. So randomness, it’s the very opposite of

information. I know Dr. Tom Schneider at NIH, he would say the same thing and he’s a committed atheist and Marxist and evolutionist. It’s just, it’s not common sense to make a claim like this, it’s well-established in information science that randomness is the opposite of information. So there’s no way you’re evolving a useful function. A function that’s an increase in information. A Marxist? Running the PragerU playbook now? A function is not an increase in information, idiots. You have some fixed number of base pairs, certain sequences are functional, others aren’t. The sequence changes by mutation and a

functional sequence eventually arises. Like all the times we physically observe this happening. Triple stamp a double stamp, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd. The next claim is that humans and chimps share 98.8% DNA similarity. Oh yeah yeah, so note Fred, they had to get that decimal place in there, just like they do with their 4.543 billion year age of the Earth, so they sound like they… Plus or minus a billion years. 500 million Fred, let’s, we don’t wanna mess that up. So that’s all to pretend that they’ve done experiments or something, that gave

them an exact number. Scientists aren’t pretending to do experiments, little boy. They do experiments. Scientists do experiments. They perform calculations. They arrive at those values through experiment and calculation. Giggling and saying “nuh uh” is not a valid refutation of the efforts of the entire global scientific community. For the age of the earth that’s the radiometric dating stuff you fumbled earlier, and for this figure you’re citing, that would be genomic analysis. Did you know that we can sequence the genomes of two species and compare them to see precisely how similar they are down to the individual

base pair? Is that imaginary? Are you like flat earthers pretending that scientists are paid full salaries to play solitaire all day? Then of course, as always, they offer a limp-dicked attempt at justifying their baseless incredulity, which is a screenshot of somebody saying something about the chimp Y chromosome, which of course is only one of 46 chromosomes for humans and 48 for chimps, precisely the kind of cherry-picking they pretend they aren’t doing, and then they disingenuously flash this statistic about 84% one-to-one exact matches, which is a totally separate method that does not allow for realignment after

discrepancies are detected, which is the far more sensible way to compare two genomes given the multitude of ways that mutation can affect a genome. It’s like comparing two sentences that differ by one word with differing numbers of letters and continuing to compare the sentences letter for letter after the beginning of the word discrepancy. It makes more sense to note the changed word and then continue comparing afterwards, after realignment. Endosynbiosis corroborates the evolution of single celled organisms to multicell organisms. You know Fred eukaryotes to prokaryotes. No, dumbass, from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. How much more transparently can

you admit that you don’t know what either of those words mean by scrambling the order of them. This would be akin to claiming two pieces of driftwood getting stuck together suggests that if we wait long enough Doug, we’ll get a yacht. That’s really, I don’t think that’s a bad analogy. That’s really cute, but as I explained in my video we have observed endosymbiosis. That was the bit on the evolution of the nitroplast. We saw it happen, therefore it can have happened other times. But sure, keep whining about driftwood, that makes you sound smart. But you

can’t get something like they claim and somehow justify the evolution of eukaryotes to prokaryotes, the single celled to multicelled animals. It’s a pipe dream. Endosymbiosis didn’t produce multicellular organisms you incomparable dunce. It produced eukaryotic unicellular organisms. How can you possibly be this clueless, that you don’t even know the definitions of these words, and you’re pretending to debunk them? Do you not have an ounce of shame in you? What about the very fact that, reproduction, the whole process of conception, and how you’ve got an elaborate mechanism just for when the sperm fertilizes the egg, and zap,

you have to keep all the other sperm out or you’re gonna have polyspermy, which is really really bad. What sperm? What egg? What in the sweet fuck are you talking about? Unicellular organisms don’t perform sexual reproduction you brainless sack of jello. Endosymbiosis did not produce multicellular organisms. A seven year old could google the word endosymbiosis and in ten seconds learn more about it than you’ve ever known. You’re pretending to debunk endosymbiosis, a thing we have physically observed, and you don’t even know what the word means. Holy fucking christ. Here's what I know, I have an

old evolutionary textbook, it’s not that old but it’s one they used in college, and from that textbook it says Pakicetus, one of these transitions, is known from a skull. And pieces of a skull, Doug. And from fragments of a skull they create an entire organism. Well Pakicetus is only one of dozens of species along the evolutionary lineage of whales, so by ignoring all the others and focusing on this one you are just immediately admitting that you’re not interested in acknowledging the evidence. But more importantly, you’re just lying. There are many Pakicetus specimens, many of which

have partial skeletons, and the morphology is easily pieced together by comparing hundreds of different specimens. Cherry picking is even worse when that one cherry is a lie, Freddo. So what millions of evolutionists believe regarding whale fossils is based on fabricated and fully falsified misinformation, Doug. Yeah. It’s almost as embarrassing as showing the Haeckel pictures. I mean not quite as embarrassing, but it’s on that career-ending level for David James. This is how pathetic creationist apologists are. They construct a false reality for their poor victims whereby every single paleontologist in the world is a filthy, conniving fraud,

inventing specimens out of thin air and putting them in museums to dupe the masses. This is supposed to somehow be more believable than the actual reality, where these two jackasses are the ones lying. As for my career, Dougo, thanks for your concern, but I’m still crushing it over here. And his dig partner said it was an ape. Dr. Warner was shocked when he said that, but Johanson, it’s a fraud for him to keep that from the public. You know, his partner sure didn’t think the knee joint was human. Totally false. Lucy wasn’t a human. She

was an Australopithicene. Which is an ape. Just like humans are apes. All hominids are apes. Once again, you are just demonstrating that you have no idea what words mean, while offering nothing but some vague anecdote that definitely didn’t happen, and pretending that debunks all of anthropology. Even Kent Hovind would be ashamed of you. And of course there was that whole national geographic where you see a bonesaw changing the pelvis because it must have been stepped on, that’s what made it look apelike. It’s unbelievable. Looks like these two dipshits didn’t watch my Casey Luskin debunk where

I exposed Discovery Institute for lying about what Lovejoy was doing here. Give it a watch, jerks. Lord Sully Zuckerman, he once quipped that they’re all just bloody apes, and this guy was an evolutionist, but he said you won’t find any science at all in anthropology. He says there’s no science to be found there. That’s right. That’s right. But I guess I digress again. You’re not really digressing, just saying “nuh uh” to entire fields of science you don’t understand is literally all you do, so this is right on par for you. Anthropology is science. All anthropologists

agree on these hominid lineages and the dozens of species with intermediary characteristics, including bipedality for Australopithicenes. Giggling and hiding under a pile of coats isn’t gonna cut it, moron. We’ll talk about his claim that archeopteryx is a transition from a dino to bird, that’s false. All fresh water fish would die after the flood, false. Two organisms of each species do not have enough genetic diversity to produce a large and healthy population, false. The geologic column is a flawless record of evolution, everything fits precisely, there are no exceptions, false. This is what passes for debunking in

the world of creationists. Say objectively true things and follow them with “false”. Let’s see if it works the other way. God created the universe and everything in it in six literal days even though a day is meaningless until the sun and earth exist. False! God created humans exactly how they are and sends them to heaven or hell based on whether they grovel at his feet convincingly enough. False! You guys are totally smart, educated, virile men who aren’t humiliating themselves every second of every day. False! Wow, that is easy! I should just do this for all

my debunks from now on. Who needs evidence? Anyway that’s the end of their stunning analysis, apart from calling me a communist and then giggling to themselves for several minutes about how hard they owned me, bro. Which means we can safely file these guys away in the bin of brainwashed reality denying losers who tried to debunk me. It’s getting pretty full in there. So that’s it for Real Science Radio, a couple of pointless apologist clowns who will now swiftly return to total irrelevance. I wonder if they’ll watch this and actually learn something? I’m just kidding, I

know that’s physically impossible for them. But hopefully this served as a nice refresher for those of you who are brave enough to face reality. I’ll see you next time.