Why Don't You Believe in God & Creationism | Brian - Nebraska | Atheist Experience 21.04

Okay, so we have a bunch of colors lined up. Oh, we lost one. I got it. Obviously I talked too long, but we'll start with Brian in Nebraska. Thanks for waiting. Hello how are you? I'm pretty good, how are you? Yes, thanks. Okay, so, um, on to the brief. um. What is the reason why you do not

believe

in God? Is it due to lack of evidence? I've been on the internet lately and I've been watching some videos of people curing illnesses and ailments and actually growing legs, used in the name of Jesus, so like there's no leg there and it grows no, they don't like it, they have legs, but one leg is shorter than the other, so yeah, one leg is shorter than the other and they make the shorter leg grow to the length of the longer one, right, um, yeah, yeah. it's old it's old it's an old carnival trick it's a scam and there are several different ways to do it, including taking and placing the legs to the side to make one leg look longer and then when you straighten them, they come together.

I could do it. with my hands it's probably easier if you do it like this, that's one way to do it. Also if they have shoes, you can take one shoe out a little. Do some research and I bet if you Google it and I'm there. I'm just going to guess the leg growth scam. You will find plenty of articles on how this can be achieved now. What most people will do when I tell them is to say oh, but that's not what happened in this video I saw. How do you know? and I'm not saying you're saying that, but that's my question.

I can find videos of almost anything. I can search for videos of supposed miraculous healings and exorcisms. Someone sent me a bunch of videos here. a video of an exorcism well as you know because what I saw were two people one of them hysterical and the other preaching how you came to the conclusion that this is an exorcism that there was a spirit if if prayer could really do The legs grow, Don't you think this would be front page news and there would be Nobel Prizes for changing the way we do medicine instead of a YouTube video and something that would happen in a tent?

Yes, look, I thought. about too, but I also learned, have you ever heard of? Let's see, I think it was in 2013 when a scientist discovered blood in a dinosaur bone and there's an interview of the scientists who actually discovered it and she was, she was actually saying that when she first found it, she was pretty nervous about telling it to the scientific community, but from my perspective, I wonder why you would be nervous if science deviates from the evidence so that the impression she was giving viewers is that scientists are already biased and refuse to

believe

or accept anything that doesn't go with her actual beliefs, so I'm sure she can give that impression, but is it true?

It's true? Yes. It is true that you are saying that it is true that scientists are biased against new information that could alter a paradigm. Yes, I'm saying it's a pretty big speculation scene about non-verbal communication. and the verbal communication that she was putting out and her being a scientist and being exposed to this community I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Brian, you're misunderstanding, I don't care what she thinks. I'm saying: is it true that the scientific community is biased against findings like this that would alter current knowledge in science? in my personal opinion, based on the evidence that seeing an um in a father as she was was 66 million years old.

I don't care about the details of this case. I am asking the abstract question about whether she is in It is true that the scientific community has a conspiratorial bias to hide these facts and not let them come to light. I think why I think that depends on the situation and the reason I took so long. It's time to explain it, the last thing I said is that for example we can all agree that the foundation of scientists or one of their main conversations is evolution and no, actually evolution is a part and basis of life sciences, but not all, but that's how science works: they want new information, especially information that alters the current finding because that's how you learn more about the world, that's how you get more research grants, the idea that There is a conspiracy to hide this. things you're talking about, for example, madebbc.com.

I'm looking at the article right here, it's living science, it's a scientist because when you discover blood in bone, blood or organic material, it's not like that. It's supposed to last even more than a million years, and seeing blood on a bone apparently 66 million years old sparks huge speculation. This one says 75 million. So, are we talking about the same thing? There's 60, there's a 66 million bone and an 80 and and an 80 uh millionaire bone that this uh this lady called I've I can't remember her name mary schweitzer it's mary schweitzer because this bbc article says she's 75 million years old yeah, same thing 60 65 75.

Oh my god, can't you just google dinosaur bone blood? Well, no, that didn't come. I wouldn't be able to immediately access the Institute for Creation Research if I did, but Jen is watching the story about this on Live Science. I'm watching it on the BBC, so where is the conspiracy to hide this information? And I also got some out of the Smithsonian magazine, so it was published widely and you published it in the journal of proteome research, which is a couple. -Revised diary, so no one is hiding this from anyone and it wasn't blood found on the bone, it was blood found on the bones, yes, blood, sorry, blood, blood found, as if the point was that there shouldn't be blood, that's what's in any dinosaur. bone well because and I know they're saying this is because of the iron bone, but when she first made this discovery, the scientists instead of saying um oh, is there iron in the bone?, they chose to ridicule her.

No, they were appropriately skeptical because this had never been found before and what he had to do, well, what he had to do was prove that the sample that he was using where he found this supposed blood had not been contaminated with anything else and once His findings were embraced by the scientific community and were hailed as a remarkable discovery, so what's your problem with that? My problem is when when she first found the discovery they didn't believe her, yeah that's exactly what they're supposed to do. Yeah, this is why when someone comes in and says, "Hey, I found this fossil of a bird-like dinosaur," the first thing we should do is investigate it, you don't start off believing you believe after there's enough evidence and then someone comes to mind. something that has not been seen before and saying look what I found should not be believed just because they say they found it, what should happen is that there is proper research and a conclusion is reached and that is published and peer reviewed, What exactly has happened here?

Where is the scientific conspiracy? There seems to be a lack of communication. I understand what you're saying, but my concern was that she would admit that she was afraid. I don't mind. I do not see it. I don't see how this is relevant because you, Brian, won't let me finish, you are worried about your fear of presenting this and that this is enough to conclude that the fear is justified when the evidence we have is that the fear is not was justified, well can I just give you the video so you can watch it and make your own speculations?

I'm not interested in watching a video, what could I get out of a video? They would have to go. and investigate it, this is for the same reason they didn't immediately believe her when she showed up. This is the same reason why you shouldn't believe a video when you see it. You have to investigate more. Have you investigated beyond seeing the? video, do you have any

experience

in this area? Of course, and then all you have to look at is the fact that organic materials should not be in a dinosaur bone. Wait, I thought this was a video about growing up.

I thought this was a video about growing legs, yeah I know, but we kind of transitioned and branched out to another topic, so you want to send us videos about blood on a dinosaur bone that we've already recognized as scientific. No, I want you to think about Logic that the logic of saying that it is acceptable to believe that blood, that blood, organic material should be present in a dinosaur bone, she showed that that is the case, not like this, this is the period, although scientists have already said that organic materials should not be present under normally understandable circumstances, but she demonstrated that this bone she was using was not contaminated and this was in fact blood and other tissues from a dinosaur, so what we have kept we have a scenario where something I didn't think could happen happened we don't have an explanation or they may have one I haven't actually read the horror we may or may not have an explanation for why what is the problem what is the problem iron what is the problem the problem is it does not seem genuine what does not seem genuine and on what basis do you say that it is not genuine? you don't know well what is not genuine and you don't even have

experience

in this field no, I am I am, I am basing everything on what they say, who it is, what they are, they are scientists, scientists and that doesn't tell me anything.

Scientists were appropriately skeptical that this could happen because at the time no one had proven that they actually attacked it. They brutally attacked her, okay, they were wrong to brutally attack her if that's what happened, but I have no reason to believe Brian, I have no reason to believe anything you're saying right now, yes, no, but can you understand? why would they attack brutally or would you be convinced? Brian, I'm not convinced they did it and I just said that if they brutally attacked her they were wrong to do it, but you don't understand, you can't build, you can't build a conspiracy and then when it's taken down it goes back to the beginning and says yes, but they attacked her brutally and this shows a conspiracy among scientists, no, what happened was that they did not believe until there were good reasons to believe and if someone attacked her brutally, they were wrong. yes, because they are protecting evolution, because evolution, so, no, no, no, you don't accept, no, wait a minute, this discovery is actually a significant contribution to evolutionary science because, as Mary Schweitzer herself points out , No.

No, it not only tells us how tissues are preserved over time, but it also gives us the chance to observe how these animals adapted to their environment while they were alive. This is a significant contribution to evolutionary science, but it does not contradict any saying that only organic material can survive. It lasts a million years now no, it doesn't, so you were telling me you were expecting to see million year old blood, uh, I mean, do you like to regurgitate words and not pay attention to what we said? Jen explained before this discovery that we had no evidence that this could happen and after this discovery we have evidence that this could happen, but how do you know that the evidence they are giving you is actually true?

That's the point because you do more than look at shit. video and come to whatever conclusion you feel comfortable with. See this is what happens with peer reviewed science and publication is that they lay out their methodology so another scientist can replicate the work. you could replicate the work. You would have to go and get the appropriate skills and access to the appropriate lab, but if you had that you could replicate this work and prove it yourself, that's the point of publishing in scientific journals, so you publish the information so that more than one person take a look at it.

This is not a secret, so I wonder what this all has to do with it. I mean, it seems to me that you don't believe evolution has occurred. You don't trust scientists, not because, no, because I mean, there is, there is, too. uh uh like in the ancient history of ancient Egypt, like inside the pyramids, there's actually old writings of giants that walk the earth and they're actually responsible for the pyramids and you believe that and you believe that Brian and you believe that Brian , yes, I think there is so you think you will believe this that you believe was written in an ancient pyramid but not in the findings of peer-reviewed science and you know what I don't believe you, I think this is a joke, bye, right ?

Don't believe that one bit and your voice sounded suspiciously familiar and I'm sure there's someone in the chat room saying, "Oh, this is the guy who prank-called you a bunch of times, so thank you, thank you for waste your time, but we got to let's talk about this, here's a scientific finding that is correct and we didn't have to exaggerate it or delve into your crazy conspiracy theories about how scientists are desperate to protect evolution, so they are unwilling to consider it.that they considered and verified, yes, wow, that made a significant contribution to evil. No, I don't believe that call one bit, no.