Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Paulogia Responds To My Video With Flawed Argumentation and Strawman Fallacies

Transcript

Paulogia Responds To My Video With Flawed Argumentation and Strawman Fallacies · Brett Keane and Eve Show

4:02
Not the final answer. Hello there everyone.
5:41
If you're watching this video then you are part of the tto,
5:45
our army and army. That is building itself up one
5:48
subscriber at a time as you can see from the title and thumbnail
5:52
of today's video today, we have a doozy of a topic.
5:56
Now as you can see right here on screen back on October 18, 20
6:01
22, I put out a video titled apology, acclaimed sin doesn't
6:06
exist in order. To avoid being held accountable
6:09
for his sins. And as you can see in the
6:12
screenshot that I have, it paused on apologia put out in a
6:15
Tweet back in October of 2022. That sin doesn't exist if God
6:21
doesn't exist and that we shouldn't fall for Guilt tactics
6:24
since this is the case. And So I responded to that tweet
6:28
and also made a lot of observations about the atheist
6:32
internet community in general, the apology is a part of and
6:36
talked About how they all are trying to avoid accountability
6:40
for their sins. Ultimately well apologia got
6:44
wind of my video and he was so bothered by it.
6:48
He was so triggered by it that he actually decided to make his
6:52
own response, video to it on his Paula G alive Channel.
6:57
He stole the title of my video, for his response video, calling
7:01
it Paula Gia, claims sin doesn't exist in order to avoid being
7:05
held accountable for his sins. And the video was uploaded to
7:09
his apology alive channel on December 8, 2022 and it has over
7:14
nineteen and a half thousand views.
7:16
So in terms of traffic, his videos doing quite well,
7:20
relative to the size of his apology alive Channel.
7:23
But after watching apology is video response to me in its
7:27
entirety. The first time around, I decided
7:31
there was only one appropriate response to apologia.
7:36
I am going to destroy Oh, him. Sure, may I ask how good
7:42
question Android 17 and if you want to know the answer to that
7:46
question, stay tuned. now, I will say right off the
8:21
bat, before we get into this video, I am going to be
8:26
responding to almost every second of footage in this video
8:30
by apologia, there's a one-minute clip near the
8:34
beginning that I chose not to respond to and then there's like
8:38
the last I think 50 seconds to a minute of the video where I
8:43
don't respond to it because most of it's just Paula Gia playing
8:47
my footage and then saying something that wasn't worth
8:50
responding to because I think I already covered it, but we're
8:53
going to be responding to so much of Paula.
8:55
G is video, the I don't think Paula Gia or any of his fans
9:00
will the Janet Leigh be able to say that.
9:02
I'm leaving anything out or taking things out of context, in
9:06
relation to apology as video. It is in the first 29 seconds of
9:11
this video, where we see Paula, GSA something that I feel is
9:15
worth responding to our. We atheists.
9:19
Are we not? Leavers.
9:20
Just because we want to sin and that is the topic of our final
9:25
video of the night. Tto are just in Derby, is a
9:28
gentleman who I knew from years ago, made a bunch of response
9:32
videos when he was on YouTube to my young Earth creation,
9:36
response videos. He didn't like me then, at one
9:39
point chanak, you had a conversation with him.
9:41
He's someone who left my life and my awareness circles a while
9:45
ago, but when I was working. So, as we could see In that
9:49
clip, Ology a talks about how I made response videos to his
9:52
content years ago, that I was once interviewed by his
9:55
girlfriend. Shannon Q, which is true and
9:58
that I fell out of his awareness Circle a long time ago.
10:02
Well, let me explain to you apology, why?
10:04
I fell out of your awareness Circle back then, the reason why
10:08
I fell out of Paula, G is awareness circles, because back
10:11
in 2018, I became so fed up with the increasing YouTube
10:15
censorship regarding news and current events topics that I
10:18
decide to leave YouTube. And focus on building that my
10:21
bit Chute Channel over the next three years.
10:23
I went from having a tiny bit Chute, channel to being one of
10:26
the top 5% creators on the site in terms of subscribers and
10:30
Total video views. Although the last time I
10:34
confirmed that was back in 2021. So I don't know if I'm still in
10:39
the top five percent on bit shoot among creators or if I've
10:42
slipped to the top 10%. I'm not quite sure which is true
10:46
at this moment. However, I never stopped doing
10:49
Creationism topics but I did start doing a lot of coverage of
10:53
news and current events. And I also start uploading my
10:57
content to other sites like Rumble Odyssey, huge tube joshu
11:01
TV. I even started my own YouTube
11:04
alternative called quarter last year.
11:06
The reason why I came back to YouTube 13 months ago and
11:10
subsequently came back in topology has radar into his
11:13
awareness circle is because my friend, Brett Keen encouraged me
11:16
to come back to YouTube with him.
11:18
And I, To come back just for the hell of it, just to see if my
11:24
increase in production value on my content.
11:27
In my better speaking style than I had years ago.
11:31
I wanted to see if I could grow better on YouTube than I did
11:34
back then. But it's not something I'm
11:36
living for because I'm on a bunch of different sites and
11:39
just to prove the point topology that I'm not just on YouTube
11:43
anymore. Here's my Rumble Channel which
11:46
is the biggest YouTube alternative in terms of web
11:48
traffic and total. Users, here's my Odyssey
11:51
Channel. Here's my bit Chute Channel.
11:54
Where, as you can see, I have over 2300 subs and I have over
11:59
five hundred and eighty thousand Total video views.
12:03
And if you look at my most viewed videos on my bit Chute
12:06
Channel, their videos that have several thousand views on them.
12:10
And I've lost count of how many videos on bit shoot of mine.
12:13
Have over 1,000 views. So, on bit, shoot, I'm actually
12:17
a really popular guy. Here's my YouTube channel, which
12:22
is run by the Utah, Gun Exchange, a pro-second Amendment
12:25
organization, and the United States of America.
12:28
I've 160 Subs there. And I have, if you go scrolling
12:31
through my library, a lot of videos with hundreds, even 1,000
12:35
plus views on that site. And then here's my joshu TV
12:39
channel which is run by my friend, Josh seeking the truth
12:43
and with my 107 subscribers, I'm actually one of the biggest
12:48
channels on his small website, which is a small website in
12:52
terms of users and web traffic, not a small website in terms of
12:56
features and functionality. And then, as I mentioned before
12:59
here is quarter, which is my very own YouTube alternative
13:04
that I started last year. It's very similar to joshu TV
13:08
because it uses the exact same video sharing site script and
13:12
open source script called a video.
13:15
And I have pretty much all the same features and functionality
13:18
that joshu. Has plus, I turned on a couple
13:22
that joshu TV doesn't, but that's neither here nor there.
13:26
So between running my own YouTube, alternative called
13:31
quarter, and between having all of my content up on all these
13:37
different video sharing sites as well as YouTube.
13:40
Well you're not just dealing with a simple Christian YouTuber
13:44
anymore apology. You're dealing with a video
13:46
content creator who has his eyeball in the future.
13:49
ER, and has taken every step possible to prevent himself from
13:54
being censored. So even in the worst case
13:57
scenario, where I get banned from YouTube and Rumble and
13:59
odyssey and B shooting huge tube and God forbid Josh you TV, I
14:04
still have my own YouTube alternative that I run that I
14:07
will be able to put my content on, you can't silence me anymore
14:12
and I don't mean you apology. I mean, the general censorious
14:16
people out there who would love to silence people like me.
14:19
Now we're going to pick up right?
14:21
Where we left off at the 29th second Mark, and we're going to
14:24
watch the next 33 seconds of footage.
14:27
Let's get into it on the last Kent hovind video, which if you
14:31
saw it was rather disturbing an awful.
14:33
You may have sought tto are in there.
14:35
Justin talking, he did his own research about Kent hovind into
14:38
Justin's credit. He has determined that Kent
14:41
hovind personal flaws, which there are many.
14:45
And I don't want to sell you this dream going in to overcome
14:48
any of the right ideas that he As about creation and all those
14:51
kind of things and Justin is, one of the people calling, it
14:54
can't open supporters. And with me, would say that
14:57
there are better places to put your young Earth, creationist
14:59
support and money, and that kind of thing, someone who does.
15:02
And as we could see in this clip, apologia gives me credit
15:07
for my original can't hoeven expose series regarding the
15:11
Chris Jones situation and he praises the work that I did in
15:15
the series. So it looks like all those years
15:18
I spent getting Journalism degree finally paid off.
15:23
And after all, if you follow that whole situation, The Daily
15:26
Beast picked up on that whole story like a month or two ago,
15:31
which we had beaten them to the punch by several months, almost
15:35
a year. And if you look at that Daily
15:36
Beast article, a lot of the information that was talked
15:40
about in that story came from people like me, and Brett keen,
15:45
and Cindy, Lincoln and marks, Tony, and others already
15:48
covering it. So I I am part of the cabal of
15:51
people on the internet who exposed the whole Kent hovind,
15:54
Chris Jones situation along before The Daily Beast got in on
15:58
the ACT. And I will agree with Paula Gia
16:01
on this apology. And I both agree that there are
16:04
better, young Earth creationists than Kent hovind to support and
16:08
invest in in terms of your monetary donations or any kind
16:12
of financial investments, and I'm not talking about myself,
16:16
although I certainly would appreciate that.
16:18
I mean, The Northwest creation Network, there's the Apologetics
16:22
form of Snohomish County. There's Sal, there's a whole
16:26
bunch of people. I could have probably made a
16:28
list of that would be better to support than Kent hovind.
16:32
If you're a young Earth creationist, but with that aside
16:35
also, when I look at Paula Gia praising my work and giving me
16:38
credit for my Kent hovind expose Series.
16:41
This praise that I get from Paula Gia only cements my
16:45
personal theory that the atheist internet Community would be
16:49
singing. My My Praises right now on and
16:52
all of the time if I chose to identify as one of them and
16:55
spent my time attacking Christians and creationists do
16:59
you see I'm actually a very smart guy and I do very good
17:02
work in my content and the atheist.
17:05
Internet Community would appreciate that a lot more if I
17:10
wasn't applying my skills to them.
17:12
So yeah, if I was an atheist attacking Christians and
17:16
creationists, apologia would not be the only And praising my work
17:21
and the quality of my content. Pretty much all of his atheist
17:24
internet friends would be doing the same thing.
17:27
Now, we're going to play the next 24 seconds of this video
17:31
where apologia once again says something that is worth
17:35
responding to less harm. Anyway, so, Justin got back on
17:38
my radar and I noticed, as I was doing that video that he put out
17:42
this video, apologia claims sin doesn't exist in order to avoid
17:47
being held accountable for his sins.
17:49
Yes, that's a long title but it has my name in it, so it's not
17:53
just a generic. You just want us in apparently
17:56
apologia just wants to sin so let's see what Justin has to
18:00
say. So as we could see from that 24
18:03
second clip of the video, Apologia says that he came
18:08
across my video apology. Acclaim sin doesn't exist in
18:12
order to avoid being held accountable for his sins and he
18:15
assumes that I'm only going to be talking about him instead of
18:19
the general atheist internet community and I am sorry Paula
18:23
Gia that you got the impression that you did off of the title of
18:27
my video. But it seems to me that you
18:29
don't understand how the way I titled my video is actually a
18:35
common practice for Content creators.
18:39
There are many content creators, who will put together a video or
18:42
a live stream where they talk about many different things or
18:45
topics. But they will title the video
18:48
based on one specific topic or clip of their video or live
18:53
stream. And in my case, I used apology
18:56
as tweet as a prompt to discuss. Why the general atheist internet
19:00
Community denies? The existence of God.
19:04
There is no written or Unwritten rule.
19:06
Rule that prevents me from doing this.
19:09
The fact that I even have to explain this to you apologia,
19:12
frankly is pretty embarrassing. It's an embarrassment, you
19:17
should already know this. After all the years that you've
19:20
been on the internet as a content creator, I shouldn't
19:22
have to be explaining this to you at all.
19:25
But as we will see later in the video, Even though I mostly
19:29
spoke about the general internet atheist Community.
19:32
Instead of Paula Gia specifically in the video he's
19:35
responding to You'll see later in the video that Paula Gia to
19:40
actually does attempt to avoid accountability for his sin in
19:44
the variety of ways, but we have yet to get to that that comes
19:48
later. Let's get instead to the next
19:51
clip which will take up about 53 seconds.
19:56
We need to talk about a recent tweets that Paula Gia.
20:00
Put out a tweet, the action. We need to talk about.
20:03
Oh, Jesus, Sweet guys, Twitter, man, if anything is going to get
20:06
me, Cancelled in this world. It's my activity on Twitter.
20:09
I like Twitter too much. It's fun.
20:11
And I like to have fun there shows that everything he has to
20:14
say about atheism and evolution and a lack of evidence for God's
20:18
existence in the truthfulness of the biblical.
20:20
Worldview a recent tweet that apologia put out.
20:23
Proves that all of that is just an intellectual smokescreen all
20:27
of it. Holy cow guys, what have I done?
20:30
I put out a tweet. In one tweet, I have undermined
20:34
everything I've ever said about the Bible.
20:36
Everything I said about Chris, Already everything I've said
20:37
about science has been undermined, single tweet.
20:42
I've been I'm going to be canceled guys.
20:44
Holy cow. Maybe I can hopefully I can get
20:46
back in a race. This maybe can delete it.
20:48
What did I tweet? So as we could see In that clip,
20:54
apologia responds to my point about his tweet, proving that
20:58
all his auntie creationism stuff is an intellectual smokescreen
21:03
by sarcastically claiming that he's going to get cancelled.
21:06
Over it. The irony apology is comet is
21:10
pretty rich because later on in this video we're going to see
21:14
that Paula Gia himself has engaged in cancel culture,
21:17
tactics years ago. But what I want to do for your
21:22
attention right now is talk about what an intellectual
21:26
smokescreen is and in order to properly explain what an
21:30
intellectual smokescreen is, let's go to the Merriam-Webster
21:34
Dictionary definition of a Smokescreen definition.
21:39
Number one is a screen of smoke to hinder enemy observation of a
21:44
military force area or activity, definition, number 2 which is
21:50
the relevant definition to what we're talking about now.
21:53
Something designed to obscure confuse or mislead.
21:58
The second definition is the one that applies when I claim that
22:02
Paula G is anti creationism, Pro Evolution content is an
22:06
Flexuous, smokescreen. The reason why apology is anti
22:10
creationism Pro Evolution content is an intellectual
22:13
smokescreen is because it obscures confuses and misleads
22:17
people. And what the heart of the issue
22:19
really is for non-believers. The truth is that for atheists
22:22
like Paula Gia accountability for sin is the real issue, but
22:27
they know that denying the existence of God and sin in
22:30
order to avoid accountability for sin is stupid, even Paula, G
22:34
himself later on. In this video will acknowledge
22:36
College how stupid this idea is there for atheists like Paula
22:41
Gia set out to make you think that the reason they reject
22:45
God's existence is because of the lack of scientific evidence
22:48
supporting his existence, or the truthfulness of the Bible.
22:51
We all know those of us who are familiar apologia we all know
22:56
that. Paula G is an atheist content
22:58
creator who does not believe that God exists.
23:00
So when Paula Gia puts out a tweet saying that sin doesn't
23:03
exist if God doesn't exist, then we have no choice.
23:06
No choice. But to conclude, that Paula G is
23:08
rejection of God is based on sin and avoiding accountability for
23:12
it. No matter how much Paula Gia
23:15
says to the contrary. And one last thing I'd like to
23:18
point out about intellectual smokescreens is that you can use
23:21
things that, you know, or believe to be true in order to
23:25
obscure confuse or mislead people away from something.
23:29
You really don't want them to look at.
23:31
I have zero doubt that Paula Gia believes all the stuff he says
23:35
about evolution. Science being true in regards to
23:39
Origins. The point I'm making is that by
23:42
getting you to focus on science and evolution in order to D
23:45
convert you from belief in God, apologia is diverting your
23:48
attention away from the morality in sin issue.
23:51
That is staring him in the face, like the elephant in the room
23:55
that it is. And now, I know apologia, makes
23:58
fun of me later for a scribing really one-dimensional, villain
24:02
thinking to him. But I have no doubt, not only
24:05
the apology of Believes what he says in regards to Evolution and
24:09
science. You know, disproving the Bible
24:12
and young Earth creationism. But I also have no doubt that he
24:15
really believes that God doesn't exist.
24:18
I have no doubt that he's convinced himself and he's had
24:21
other people convinced him that God doesn't exist and we're
24:25
going to see later on in the video, apologia is going to
24:28
display multiple behaviors that indicate that he is trying to
24:32
avoid accountability for sin, but it is in the next 31.
24:36
Seconds of his video where we see Paula Gia commits a logical
24:40
fallacy. Oh, Gia actually has a much
24:44
simpler reason for rejecting. God, he doesn't want to be held
24:48
accountable for his sins by God and we can prove that here today
24:53
using apology as a words. Holy cow guys.
24:57
So I just want us in everything. I do is because I want to sin,
25:02
none of, it's because I believe what I'm saying.
25:04
And holy cow, we're going to prove it prove using only my own
25:09
words. We're going to I'm in trouble.
25:12
My own words. So as we could see in that
25:16
particular clip, apologia, falsely claims that I said that
25:22
I was going to prove Paula G, it was trying to avoid
25:24
accountability for his sins. Using only apology is own words.
25:31
The problem with this claim of Paula Gia's is that in the clip
25:34
of me, that he plays, you never heard me say that we were going
25:38
to prove this using only apology has own words.
25:42
Apology inserted the word only in there to set up a straw man
25:47
of me that he can tear down later in the video.
25:51
Apologia does go on later in the video to talk about what a good
25:55
guy, he is. So maybe apologia can explain
25:58
why he thought it was. Okay to lie by putting words
26:01
into my mouth. That I never actually said thus
26:04
committing the straw man fallacy.
26:07
Now we're going to skip ahead to the 349 Mark of this video.
26:12
And we're going to see Paula Gia talk until the 5 minute and 35
26:16
seconds Mark of the video and it's in this clip where we see
26:19
pollachius say the following if I refuse to believe in a
26:24
theistic Evolution because it never has and can never be
26:28
proven True by observational science that I'm anti-science
26:31
LOLs. It's a okay.
26:34
That's a lot to unpack. Let's go backwards.
26:37
So LOLs, plural of laugh out loud.
26:40
I don't I'm maybe I'm too old. I don't.
26:42
Allah is with the ZZ4, the Canadians.
26:45
What that is, is that it's not plural, it's just put an anyway,
26:48
fine, you're an Ela all person. I'm a laugh Emoji person to each
26:52
their own no problem. So if I refuse to believe in a
26:54
theistic Evolution because it never can be proven True by
26:57
observational science. Now I am a little bit concerned
27:00
here for a second because Justin earlier said that he was going
27:03
to prove stuff about me. And yet, he doesn't seem to
27:07
understand how scientific proof Works.
27:11
Nothing gets proven. Even to be true in science in
27:14
science, things fail, to be proven false.
27:18
We prove things to be wrong, that's falsifiability all the
27:21
time. That's how we get, better ideas,
27:23
but nothing is ever proven true. No one's ever proven gravity to
27:26
be true. No one's ever proven magnetic
27:28
forces to be true. Again, these are theorems that
27:31
we can prove to be false but we still hold this tentative as the
27:35
best explanation we have right now.
27:37
So Justin, I'm a little bit worried that you don't
27:39
understand what proof is but also clearly You are
27:42
anti-science, my friend. If you think that science proves
27:46
things, right, you just don't get it.
27:48
And I didn't either. I used to believe what you
27:50
believe that just a few short years ago, you and I would have
27:52
been friends on all this, but I've learned more.
27:55
So I'd encourage you to learn more of that is not how science
27:58
works. And so you're fine to believe in
28:00
creationism and the young Earth creationism, all that kind of
28:03
stuff, but at least embrace them.
28:05
The fact that you are anti science at least at this level.
28:09
So as we could see in this, this clip apologia claims that I am
28:15
anti-science and he claims that science is not about proving
28:20
things to be true because I pointed out that Evolution never
28:24
has and never can be proven True by observational science.
28:29
Now, when I made this claim about observational science,
28:33
maybe that went over apology is head, but he seems to be
28:36
completely unaware that the idea that evolution is not based on
28:41
observational science. Can never be proven True by
28:43
observational, science is not my idea or the idea of any
28:48
creationist individual or organization on planet Earth.
28:53
The idea that evolution is not based on observational science
28:56
and can never be proven True by observational science.
28:59
Actually comes straight from Ernst mayr.
29:02
One of the most die-hard evolutionists in history and to
29:07
prove it, I'm going to go ahead right now and take you to this
29:11
archive. Dived Scientific.
29:13
American article titled Darwin's, influence on Modern
29:18
thought, which you can see right here on the screen, it was
29:22
written by Ernst mayr. And when you scroll down a
29:27
little bit into the article, you see a section called a secular
29:34
view of life. And it is in the paragraph here.
29:40
The second paragraph of that section where Ernst mayr said
29:43
the following, these four insights served as the
29:47
foundation for Darwin's founding of a new branch of the
29:50
philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology, despite
29:55
the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy
29:58
fully developed, its eventual form is based on darwinian
30:01
concepts. For example, Darwin introduced
30:05
history. City and to science
30:07
evolutionary, biology and contrasts with physics.
30:10
And chemistry is a historical science.
30:13
The evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes
30:16
that have already taken place laws and experiments are in
30:21
appropriate techniques for the explication of such events and
30:24
processes. Instead one constructs a
30:27
historical narrative consisting of a tentative reconstruction of
30:31
a particular scenario or the particular scenario that led to
30:34
the events. One is Trying to explain.
30:37
So, according to Ernst mayr one of the most die-hard
30:40
evolutionist to ever live. He says that evolution is a
30:46
historical science and not an observational science.
30:49
He even goes so far as to say it is inappropriate to try to use
30:53
observational science to prove that evolution is true.
30:58
And what's funny about him saying this is that when you see
31:02
young Earth, creationist Ministries like answers, Genesis
31:06
claim that there is a difference between observational science
31:10
and historical science. I've seen so many atheists and
31:14
evolutionists respond AIG by claiming that they're lying.
31:17
There's no such thing as a historical science versus an
31:21
observational science. And that the folks at AIG and
31:25
young Earth creationists in general are just making this
31:27
whole thing up. But when I went to Answers in
31:30
Genesis website, to figure out where they got this idea that
31:34
evolution is Is a historical science and not an observational
31:38
science. And that there's a difference
31:40
between observational science and historical science AIG
31:44
actually linked back to this article by Ernst mayr to prove
31:49
what they were saying was true. So, this idea of, there's a
31:52
difference between observational and historical science and the
31:55
evolution falls into historical science and observational
31:59
science. This actually comes from an
32:01
evolutionist, not a creationist, but because creation is started
32:05
talking about At The Atheist evolutionist Community proceeded
32:08
to claim that creationists were just making this whole thing up,
32:11
even though it was an evolutionist that laid all this
32:14
out and just in case you don't believe me, that Ernst mayr was
32:18
a die-hard evolutionist I have here on screen and article on
32:23
edge called Ernst mayr what evolution is.
32:27
And when you go to the actual article, the actual interview,
32:31
The Edge did with Ernst, mayr Edge, asked Ernst, mayr to what?
32:35
Tent has the study of evolutionary biology.
32:38
Been the study of ideas about evolutionary biology is
32:41
evolution. The evolution of ideas or is it
32:43
a fact and Ernst mayr said in response?
32:47
That's a very good question because of the historically
32:50
entrenched resistance the thought of evolution documented
32:53
by modern-day creationism evolutionists have been forced
32:57
into defending Evolution and trying to prove.
33:00
That it is a fact and not a fiery certainly the explanation
33:04
of evolution in the search for it.
33:05
So, Line ideas has been somewhat neglected and my new book, the
33:09
title of, which is what evolution is.
33:12
It's precisely attempting to rectify that situation it
33:15
attempts to explain evolution as I say in the first section of
33:19
the book. I don't need to prove it again.
33:21
Evolution is. So clearly a fact that you need
33:24
to be committed to something like a belief in the
33:26
Supernatural. If you are at all in
33:28
disagreement with Evolution, it is a fact and we don't need to
33:32
prove it anymore. Nonetheless we must explain why
33:35
it And and how it happens. So according to Ernst mayr
33:42
Evolution allegedly is such an established fact of science that
33:46
we don't need to try and prove its truthfulness anymore.
33:49
In spite of the fact that Ernst mayr himself.
33:52
Claimed it is inappropriate to use observational science to
33:56
prove Evolution to be true as for apology as claim.
34:02
That science is not about proving things to be true.
34:05
He is straight up lying to you. All apologia is straight up
34:10
lying about science. Not being about proving things
34:13
to be true. The whole point of the
34:16
scientific method is about performing an experiment for the
34:20
purpose of potentially. Verifying your hypothesis while
34:24
being open to the possibility that the experiment could prove
34:28
your hypothesis to be false. If science was not about
34:32
attempting to prove a hypothesis to be true.
34:34
Then there It would be no point in conducting any scientific
34:38
experiments at all by claiming that science is not about
34:42
proving things to be true apologia is proving that he is
34:46
anti-science. He is the anti-science 1 in this
34:50
equation, after off science wasn't about proving things to
34:54
be true. Then why have evolutionist
34:56
wasted? Well over 100 years, worth of
34:59
History, trying to find evidence of transitional fossils.
35:03
Why did they set up experiments to try to?
35:05
Prove that you could have life come from nonliving material
35:09
without an intelligent agent being involved in the mix.
35:13
Why did they try doing any of this stuff?
35:16
If they weren't trying to prove their beliefs and their
35:18
hypotheses to be true. Now we're going to pick up where
35:22
we left off and we're going to play the next 57 seconds and
35:25
Paula Gia is about to get really silly up in here.
35:30
Now the last part about this to unpack, original tweet, that I
35:34
responded to said my anti-science.
35:36
If I don't agree that my ancestor was an ape.
35:39
Now Justin's problem here is going to be that what he calls,
35:43
observable science. Can't prove Evolution but that
35:45
wasn't the claim that I was talking about.
35:46
I'm talking about whether our ancestors rapes and here's the
35:48
problem. Observable testable science
35:52
tells us that we are currently. Apes is no scientific definition
35:56
of ape that we do not classify as we are Apes.
36:05
And you can disagree then with how scientists classify things,
36:08
that's fine, but then you are anti-science, we are Apes.
36:13
So my ancestors were also Apes. My children are Apes, my
36:18
parents. Grandparents great-grandparents,
36:20
who don't have to go back. Millions of years to come across
36:22
our ape ancestors with a Stickley.
36:24
We still are so, any complaints you have about this?
36:28
Yeah. Just completely put you in the
36:30
role of a data science. You serious.
36:37
So, as we saw in that clip, apologia claims that all humans
36:41
living today, including me and him are currently apes, and that
36:45
I am anti-science. If I disagree with that.
36:48
Well, I don't, I don't get why polish.
36:52
Wait a minute. Hold the phone.
36:57
Why didn't I see this before? Of course, how could I be so
37:03
foolish? You see, guys, I've made a
37:06
colossal mistake here. I've been interpreting Pas.
37:10
Le Jia through the lens of the biblical, worldview and young
37:14
Earth creationism. So when I look at Paula Gia
37:17
through these lens, I see a human being made in the image of
37:21
God. But I have seen In the error of
37:24
my ways. And so when I take off the lens
37:27
of the biblical worldview and young Earth creationism and I
37:32
instead, look at Paula Gia through the reality that is
37:36
biological evolution over billions of years.
37:41
Oh my goodness apology is right, he really is an ape.
37:46
I can't believe I got this. So wrong in all seriousness
37:50
though the fact that Paula Gia would so adamantly insisting.
37:54
He me and every other human alive, today is an ape is a dead
37:58
giveaway that apology is trying to avoid accountability for his
38:01
sins. All you have to do to come to
38:03
that. Conclusion is think through it,
38:05
logically apes or animals and we don't hold animals accountable
38:09
for their morality or behaviors in the same way that human
38:11
beings, hold each other accountable for our morals and
38:14
actions. Therefore if we are just Apes
38:18
instead of human beings made in the image of God, then we aren't
38:22
and shouldn't be held responsible.
38:24
Responsible for our behaviors and actions.
38:26
In the way that we currently are this explains why there is a big
38:30
push in the Western World, especially in the USA to
38:35
normalize child grooming, and pedophilia in the same manner
38:38
that homosexuality was normalized.
38:41
And just in case, you don't believe me, Paula Gia.
38:44
Here's my recent video atheist, Professor claims adults,
38:48
molesting one-year-olds is not morally wrong.
38:52
If you want to see just Just how sick and twisted your worldview
38:56
can make people apologia be sure to bring a barf bag to this
39:00
video. Now, it is in the next one
39:03
minute and 14 seconds of this video where we see Paula Gia,
39:07
say the following That's not what we're here to talk about
39:10
today. We're talking here to talk about
39:12
whether or not my whole Channel and project.
39:16
Your apology has been destroyed by tweet and that I want to sin,
39:19
but that's just a rant thank you for bearing with amazing.
39:22
The stupid positions atheist will hold to in order to avoid
39:25
being held accountable for their sins, by God.
39:28
Now, why did I throw in that last part?
39:31
Well, before I responded to this tweet, apologia put out a tweet
39:35
earlier. I just back to one last thing.
39:37
They're so he's conflating that My belief in evolution is
39:41
because I want to sin. I don't know why Justin does
39:43
with the millions and millions of Christians around the world,
39:48
if not hundreds of millions who accept evolution, but yet our
39:51
questions, what is their motivation for accepting
39:54
Evolution? There can't be faxed that are
39:56
make them accept it because he would claim there's no facts to
40:00
back it up, but it also can't be just because they want to escape
40:03
God's Wrath or avoid the idea of sin because they do accept the
40:08
idea of sin. So Again, there's this big holes
40:11
with this whole thing, but carrying on again, we're here to
40:14
talk about me and how I just want us in here that day saying
40:18
I have, this is the tweet that brings down apologia, whoo.
40:23
So as we saw in that particular clip, we saw apology a question.
40:29
How I handle the theistic evolutionists who are part of
40:32
the old Earth, creationism movement.
40:35
Any questions? What motivation theistic
40:37
evolutionists could possibly have.
40:39
Have to accept evolution and billions of years.
40:41
If they aren't trying to avoid accountability for sin apologia
40:45
then claims that there are big holes in my logic.
40:48
While there are no big holes in my logic, there are apparently
40:52
giant holes and Paula G as knowledge base.
40:55
While it is true, that theistic evolutionists are not motivated
41:00
to accept evolution in billions of years, by a desire to avoid
41:04
accountability for sin. We know for a fact that theistic
41:09
Looseness accept evolution and billions of years because they
41:13
view the majority opinion of the scientific and academic
41:16
Community as a higher authority than the Bible on Origins.
41:22
How do we know this for a fact? Well, you see Paula Gia, I read
41:26
books back in 2015, there was a theistic evolutionist named
41:31
Perry, Marshall who put out a book, titled Evolution 2.0 and
41:37
in this book. Perry Marshall makes a bunch of
41:41
arguments against young Earth creationism, but more
41:44
interesting than his arguments against young Earth, creationism
41:48
Perry Marshall claims. The Following on page 327 of his
41:53
book Evolution 2.0. Modern science speaks much more
41:58
definitively about the age of the Earth than the Bible does.
42:01
So it is perfectly legitimate to allow science to settle this
42:05
question and other words as you could see from Perry Marshall
42:09
His own words and his own book that he put out eight years ago.
42:14
The Bible is a lower Authority than the majority opinion of the
42:18
scientific and academic community on the topic of
42:22
Origins. Therefore, we should allow
42:24
science in the academic Community.
42:26
To answer the question of Origins and the age of the Earth
42:29
and universe. That is a man that has a very
42:33
low view of the Bible. Furthermore back in, 2013
42:37
William Lane, Craig admitted that Older of creationists,
42:40
reinterpret the Bible in light of the majority opinion of these
42:44
scientific and academic community on the topic of
42:47
Origins. Even though they know they're
42:49
not supposed to. And as proof of this, let's go
42:53
ahead to the video. I put out over a year ago.
42:57
I put out an April 6, 2022 titled, William Lane, Craig lies
43:02
about Bible, interpretation, Augustine and origin.
43:06
We will start at the five-minute Mark of this.
43:09
Video of mine and we will run through the 9-minute mark.
43:12
So that you not only see William Lane, Craig admitting these
43:15
things, but you see my detailed translation of what he said.
43:21
Let's let her rip. Well, I think with regard to
43:26
Christian faith and practice I would say you need first and
43:30
foremost to do your biblical, hermeneutics responsibly and
43:35
objectively. You need to not interpret the
43:39
Bible in light of modern science.
43:41
But to interpret it. According to what its original
43:45
author and original audience, would have understood.
43:48
That's the first and foremost task is to interpret the Bible
43:53
objectively and correctly. Then the second task will be
43:56
trying to integrate what we learn from the Bible with the
44:01
worldview of modern science. So as to have a sort of synoptic
44:05
worldview that takes into account, all that we've learned
44:09
not only from divine revelation, but from God's revelation in
44:13
nature, in the book of Nature and then we will build a
44:18
synoptic sort of world view that makes the best sense of the
44:23
data. So as you can see, In that clip,
44:25
you saw back in a 2013 podcast that he was on where he was
44:30
talking about how young Earth creationism is embarrassing and
44:34
he was making all kinds of arguments against young Earth,
44:37
creationism William Lane. Craig took the time to address
44:41
what proper Christian practice should be in regards to Old
44:45
versus young. Earth, creationism and William.
44:48
Lane Craig said that step one is to interpret the Bible
44:52
objectively incorrectly and what you mean?
44:55
Means by that is you accept the straightforward reading of the
44:58
Bible and you don't reinterpret it in light of anything else
45:02
including the majority opinion of the scientific and academic
45:06
Community. I agree with step 1 but then
45:10
William Lane, Craig added, a step to to what should be a one
45:14
step program. And he said that the next thing
45:17
that Christians need to do. As far as proper Christian
45:20
practice goes, is they need to take what they learn from the
45:23
Bible and what they Learn from the world view of modern
45:27
science, not the data in science, the worldview of modern
45:31
science which is code speak for the majority opinion of these
45:34
scientific and academic community.
45:37
So you need to take what you learn from the Bible and you
45:39
need to take the majority opinion of the scientific and
45:43
academic community and you need to bring them together to create
45:48
a synoptic worldview, that makes sense of the data in both.
45:53
In other words, what? William Lane.
45:55
And Craig was teaching back in 2013.
45:57
Is that Christians should reinterpret the Bible in light
46:02
of the majority opinion of these scientific and academic
46:05
community on Origins even though they're not supposed to now,
46:11
someone might object and say, but William Lane.
46:13
Craig didn't say those exact words.
46:16
Well, think about it. If you were to Define what it
46:19
means to reinterpret the Bible in light of modern science, or
46:23
in light of the world view of In science.
46:25
How would you define that you would Define it in the exact
46:29
way? That William Lane Craig
46:31
described you would say, well, you take, what you learned from
46:34
the Bible. You take the majority opinion of
46:36
the scientific and academic community, and you bring them
46:41
together and create a synoptic worldview, that makes sense of
46:44
the data and both. In other words, you reinterpret
46:48
the Bible in light of the majority opinion of the
46:52
scientific and academic community.
46:55
T, even though you're not supposed to, Not only was
46:58
William Lane, Craig admitting back in 2013.
47:01
That this is exactly what he does to justify his older of
47:05
creationism beliefs. But he was also saying, as you
47:08
could see from the clip that this is a practice that all
47:11
Christians should be doing, all Christians should be
47:14
reinterpreting the Bible in light of the majority opinion of
47:18
the scientific and academic Community.
47:20
Even though they're not supposed to, in light of the fact, that
47:24
theistic Evolutionists and older of creationist view, the
47:27
majority opinion of the scientific and academic
47:30
Community as a higher authority than the Bible on Origins.
47:34
And in light of the fact that older of creationists and
47:37
theistic evolutionist reinterpret, the Bible in light
47:41
of evolution and billions of years.
47:42
Even though they know they are not supposed to, it's pretty
47:46
safe to conclude that all theistic evolutionists are
47:49
Heretics and false teachers and I have been teaching so on my
47:53
channels. For years and I got way more
47:57
dirt on theistic evolutionists an old Earth creationists than
47:59
what I've presented here in this video.
48:03
Now we're going to presume the video and we're going to run to
48:06
the eight minute and 24 second Mark where we see the following.
48:11
Oh, now we get some real insight in topology as heart and why he
48:15
holds the world view that he does.
48:17
And he makes the censorious authoritarian stupid arguments
48:21
that he does reminder that if God doesn't exist, The night
48:25
there does sin. Don't fall for Guilt tactics.
48:30
Oh whoa, look what I've done. Look at this tweet.
48:35
Wow, that's a some vitriol just came out of nowhere there.
48:38
So why I make the censorious and deleterious and what else did he
48:43
say? Wow, he does not like me.
48:45
These are terrible things that I'm doing.
48:47
I don't know where that comes from.
48:49
So as we could see In that clip and from the very end of the
48:53
previous clip polygon, Le Jia mocks my tone of voice and
48:57
mannerisms and then acts surprised that I have such
49:00
vitriol against him apologia then questions, why I accused
49:04
him of being since Aureus and authoritarian by saying that he
49:08
has no idea where that comes from by mocking my tone of voice
49:13
and mannerisms and the way he did Paula Gia behaves just like
49:16
all the other loser atheists, I've been dealing with on the
49:19
internet for years. So obviously in that regard he's
49:23
no different than the rest of them.
49:25
M. But as for why, I accused
49:28
apologia of being since Aureus and authoritarian, I will save
49:32
Paulo Gia the work of digging through my content and just tell
49:35
them the exact reasons why I accuse him of being
49:38
authoritarian. And since Aureus right here, and
49:41
now I'm going to start with an old example before I transition
49:46
to more modern ones. So back in 2018, Paula Gia, put
49:51
out a video titled atheist banned from Ken Ham event.
49:55
Balaji a denied in this video, Paula Gia talked about how he
50:00
had booked a reservation to attend and Alberta home
50:04
Education Association conference, where Ken Ham was
50:07
booked as a speaker and he had book a reservation to attend an
50:11
AIG dinner. A couple of days before that
50:14
apologia then talks about how shortly before the AIG dinner
50:17
was sent to occur the head of the Canadian branch of AIG
50:21
called to inform Paul that his reservation at the AIG dinner,
50:25
had been Sold. And then on the day of the
50:28
actual conference by the Alberta home Education Association
50:32
apologia was driving on his way to the conference when he got
50:36
called and informed by the Alberta home Education
50:39
Association, that his reservation at the conference
50:43
had been cancelled to. And then after that happened,
50:46
apologia made a video this video, where he portrays himself
50:51
as a victim of AIG bullying before challenging Ken Ham.
50:55
To bring his views to the marketplace of ideas.
50:58
Instead of canceling apologia from listening to Ken's speak.
51:03
But what Paula Jean doesn't mention in his video?
51:06
Is that back in 2017? He was interviewed by the CPC
51:11
shortly after Ken Ham was booked to be a speaker at this
51:14
conference by the Alberta home Education Association.
51:18
And this article, we can see Paula Gia engage in cancelled
51:21
culture tactics by not only accusing canham of being a
51:25
Science denier but also accusing the Alberta home Education
51:29
Association of not taking Children's Science Education,
51:32
seriously but don't just take my word for it.
51:37
You can see on screen the article in question titled, top
51:40
us creationists, invitation is keynote speaker for Alberta
51:44
homeschooling, convention, draws fire.
51:47
And when you go down the actual article, we see a section titled
51:52
denies age of the Earth. And it says here, calgarian,
51:58
Paul ends says he walked away from his Christian faith.
52:01
After reading hams, creationist literature and started a YouTube
52:05
channel, dedicated to debunking hams teachings.
52:08
And of course, if you click on the hyperlink, it takes you to
52:11
the apology a channel. The one that's has over 100,000
52:14
Subs. As a citizen of Alberta and a
52:17
father, I'm very concerned that Ken Ham is being brought in on
52:21
multiple levels, primarily that he is a science denier.
52:25
He denies Evolution, he denies the age of the Earth and said he
52:31
says, the fact Alberta's home Education Association is booked
52:34
ham to speak raises questions. It signals to me that this
52:39
Homeschool Group is not serious about following provincial
52:43
curriculum or proper Science Education.
52:45
And for their children, he said. So when you see what Paula Gia
52:50
had to say in this CBC article from 2017, you begin to realize
52:55
that Paula, Gia is not the innocent victim that he
52:58
portrayed himself. As Paul wants you to believe
53:01
that he was canceled by AIG and the Alberta home, Education
53:05
Association, unprovoked, but Paul is the one who used
53:09
inflammatory language to try and get the Alberta home Education
53:13
Association to cancel their speaking and Agent with canham,
53:17
he did it by essentially saying to the Alberta home Education
53:21
Association. If you guys really took
53:24
Children's Science Education seriously than you never would
53:27
have booked a science denier like Ken Ham as one of your
53:31
speakers at your conference if the Alberta home Education
53:35
Association had believed apology is said and canceled canham
53:38
speaking engagement, then Ken Ham would have been just another
53:42
victim of cancel culture and Paula Gia.
53:45
Would have been the cause of it. Also, if the Alberta home
53:49
Education Association would have canceled her speaking
53:52
engagement, with canned ham, I firmly believe that Paulie G.
53:55
It would not be lamenting Ken Ham being canceled.
53:59
Paul would have said something to the effect of thank goodness
54:02
that the Alberta homeschool Education Association canceled,
54:05
that science, deniers speaking engagement, looks like they take
54:09
children Science Education, seriously after all.
54:12
However, in a hilarious twist instead, Of the Alberta home
54:17
Education Association, canceling, canham speaking
54:21
engagement with them Alberta home Education Association.
54:25
Instead chose to cancel apology as reservation on the day of the
54:29
conference, right after the Canadian branch of AIG cancel
54:33
apology is dinner. Reservation with them, tragic,
54:37
irony or Poetic Justice? You tell me?
54:42
Now the obvious response. The apologia is Going to have
54:47
when reacting to this part of this video, is that he will
54:50
claim that he was not engaging in cancel culture, tactics when
54:54
he made those comments to the CBC in 2017 to prove that he
54:59
actually was engaging in cancelled culture tactics when
55:02
he made those comments to the CBC in 2017.
55:05
Let's look at some more current examples of cancel culture in
55:09
action. So I have here on screen, a
55:14
archived version of an article. All from the telegraph titled,
55:18
Free Speech stifled as universities cancel record
55:21
number of speakers. This article came out in July of
55:25
2022. So this is nine months old.
55:29
This article freedom of speech is at risk of being stifled on
55:34
campuses after a record number of speakers and events were
55:37
rejected. Last year.
55:39
The University's Watchdog has warned the office for students
55:43
found that nearly 200 requests for events.
55:45
And speakers were rejected by English universities and
55:48
colleges in 2020, through 2021 up from 94 in the previous
55:54
Academic Year, Susan lapworth, the watchdog's interim, chief
55:59
executive said she was concerned about the possibility that
56:01
lawful views are being stifled. She warned universities that
56:05
they would face regulatory intervention.
56:07
If they fail to meet their obligations on freedom of speech
56:11
topics that some may find offensive or controversial must
56:14
be open to free debate on. Episodes and across research
56:17
communities. She said the vice-chancellor of
56:20
the University of Essex apologized last year after a
56:24
seminar on trans rights and the criminal justice system was
56:27
cancelled following complaints, that the speaker was a
56:31
transphobic who was likely to engage in hate speech.
56:35
So get that there was a speaker who is going to speak on trans
56:38
rights in the criminal justice system and the University of
56:42
Essex cancel this speaking engagement.
56:45
Because there were some people who complain to the university
56:49
that the speaker was a transphobic was likely to engage
56:53
in hate speech. So they threw out the
56:56
inflammatory language called the speaker, a trance foam, and they
57:00
went a step further and said, well, they're probably going to
57:04
engage engage in hate speech so we can't give them a chance.
57:07
In other words pre-crime, well, they might commit a crime.
57:11
So you should just go ahead and cancel them before they get a
57:13
chance to commit the crime. The University was also
57:19
criticized after Professor Rosa Friedman, an expert in
57:23
international human rights law. At the University of reading was
57:26
not invited to speak at a seminar and anti-Semitism after
57:30
concerns were raised about her gender, critical views.
57:33
So, we have two examples and just this article of speakers
57:38
being canceled via cancel culture from speaking at
57:42
universities because some people complain to the university that
57:46
the speakers were Bobe's here, we have an article from fire
57:51
titled pit, stands firm against pressure to cancel, three
57:55
conservative speakers, invited by student groups.
57:58
And this article came out, March 23rd 2023.
58:01
So just a few weeks ago, University of Pittsburgh
58:06
students in disregard of their peers.
58:08
First Amendment rights are pressuring administrators to
58:11
cancel. Three upcoming events hosted by
58:13
conservative student groups because they feature speakers,
58:16
the protesters consider anti-trans among those students,
58:20
many supporters are several State lawmakers who have also
58:23
publicly called on pit to cancel the events later this month
58:28
pits. Chapter of Turning Point USA is
58:30
slated to host the daily wire senior editor, Cabot Phillips.
58:33
They're also Sponsoring a separate event, where
58:35
decorative, Kentucky swimmer, Riley Gaines, who tied for fifth
58:39
place of transgender swimmer, Leah.
58:40
Thomas at the NCAA Championship is expected to Advocate against
58:44
transgender athletes, competing in women's sports.
58:47
Then in mid-april the college, Republicans and Intercollegiate,
58:51
Studies Institute will host a debate on transgenderism and
58:54
Womanhood with conservative commentator.
58:56
Michael Knowles and dr. Diageo Deidre McCloskey an
59:01
economist and transgender woman. The Cancellation campaign began.
59:06
When two students start a petition March, 7th demanding,
59:09
the university cancel, the three events.
59:12
It is unacceptable, and against the values of this University,
59:15
the petition organizers wrote to allow groups under its
59:18
Administration and on its behalf to host events, featuring
59:21
individuals, who wish to advance, uh, platform of hate
59:24
and transphobia and make our beloved institution.
59:27
And accomplice to the trending attacks that place trans bodies
59:31
in humanity in the middle of a culture War fabricated.
59:34
Entirely for political gain. So, in other words, you have to
59:38
students at the University of Pittsburgh who started a
59:41
petition to cancel three separate conservative speakers
59:44
from speaking engagements on their campus, Because those
59:48
speakers are transphobes, and they just promote hate of trans
59:52
people. And therefore, they shouldn't be
59:54
allowed to speak and give their side of the story on this
59:57
controversial issue. While these examples, I have
1:00:01
provided deal specifically with the current Issue of
1:00:04
transgenderism. I have witnessed the same
1:00:07
tactics be used over the years to cancel speakers in relation
1:00:10
to topics, such as Islam, feminism and creationism.
1:00:17
Oh yeah, creationists have been the victims of cancelled
1:00:21
culture, long before cancelled culture was considered cool and
1:00:25
as proof of this, well, here's an article from 2014 and CBS Los
1:00:30
Angeles, titled lawsuit CSUN. Test fired after soft tissue
1:00:36
found on dinosaur fossil. So basically what happened in
1:00:41
2012 is that Mark Armitage. A young Earth creationist who
1:00:46
worked as a researcher at Cal State University Northridge.
1:00:50
He discovered soft tissue on non fossilized Triceratops bone.
1:00:55
And then he documented his Discovery in a peer-reviewed
1:00:59
published article and two weeks, after his article was published
1:01:04
Wished his department head came into his office and told him
1:01:08
we're not going to allow your religion on our campus and
1:01:12
fired, Mark Armitage, but when you read, Mark Armitage is
1:01:16
paper. He doesn't mention religion, the
1:01:18
Bible young Earth creationism, or the impact of his discovery
1:01:24
on evolutionary Dogma, doesn't talk about any of that in the
1:01:28
paper and yet he was accused of doing.
1:01:31
So because the Add of his Department, understood the
1:01:38
implications of Mark. Armitage is Discovery all too
1:01:41
well, and so decided to can him while the going was good.
1:01:45
This led to a lawsuit by Mark Armitage against the university
1:01:50
and eventually the university settled with Mark, Armitage, a
1:01:54
significant settlement because according to Mark, Armitage is
1:01:58
lawyer, they were going to lose and unlike be unlawful
1:02:02
discrimination. Sweet.
1:02:04
Lawsuit, that Armitage had filed against them.
1:02:06
So, in order to avoid the embarrassment of having this
1:02:09
Exposed on the public record, they settle that with Mark
1:02:12
Armitage, if a significant sum of money.
1:02:14
But in addition to the canceling of Mark Armitage, I have three
1:02:19
giant books. Right here, the slaughter of the
1:02:21
dissidents series that proves with deep and thorough,
1:02:25
documentation, that Christians and creationists have been
1:02:28
cancelled from the scientific and academic communities long
1:02:32
before cancelled culture. Was considered cool and was
1:02:35
start to get applied to other topics.
1:02:39
We have Slaughter, the dissidents volume 1, the
1:02:41
shocking truth, about killing the careers of Darwin.
1:02:44
Doubters we have silencing the Darwin Skeptics the war against
1:02:49
deists Volume 2 of the slaughter, the dissident series.
1:02:52
And then we have censoring the Darwin.
1:02:54
Skeptics how belief in evolution is enforced by expunging
1:02:58
dissidents volume, 3 of the slaughter, of the dissident
1:03:01
series, even though apology. I did not call for violence
1:03:05
against canham or the Alberta home Education Association.
1:03:09
He definitely engaged in the same inflammatory language that
1:03:13
cancel culturist used to get colleges universities and other
1:03:18
organizations to cancel speakers that they don't.
1:03:21
Like another example of Paula Gia being a censorious
1:03:26
authoritarian comes from his 2022 video.
1:03:30
If I debated Kent hovind best evidence for evolution, Shin and
1:03:35
on screen. You see my video response to
1:03:37
that? I made to his video called Paula
1:03:40
G is stipulations for debating Kent hovind are
1:03:43
self-contradictory. And since Aureus in this video,
1:03:47
we see Paula Gia claim that biological evolution does not
1:03:51
speak to abiogenesis and therefore we shouldn't talk
1:03:55
about abiogenesis in debates about Evolution with
1:03:58
creationists. This is why he made the debate
1:04:02
stipulation of Kent hovind. Where he would Grant a designer
1:04:06
for the purpose of debate. The problem with this whole
1:04:10
thing though is that when Paula Gia claims that biological
1:04:13
evolution, doesn't speak to abiogenesis.
1:04:16
He is deliberately lying to all of you.
1:04:19
We know that Paula Gia is lying, not only because the Wikipedia
1:04:23
page for abiogenesis, says the abiogenesis is an evolutionary
1:04:27
process, but because the Wikipedia page for biological,
1:04:31
evolution contains a link to the This page in The evolutionary
1:04:36
history of life section under the heading origin of life and
1:04:41
you don't have to take my word for it.
1:04:43
Here on screen is the abiogenesis Wikipedia page.
1:04:47
First paragraph says in biology abiogenesis, or the origin of
1:04:54
life is a natural process by which life has arisen from
1:04:57
nonliving matter. Such as simple organic
1:04:59
compounds, the prevailing scientific hypothesis.
1:05:03
Is that the Mission from nonliving to living entities on
1:05:06
Earth was not a single event. But a process of increasing
1:05:10
complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet
1:05:14
that Prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules molecular
1:05:18
self-replication and self-assembly, auto catalysis
1:05:23
and the emergence of cell membranes.
1:05:25
Many proposals have been made for different stages of the
1:05:28
process. So I just discovered something
1:05:31
that's very interesting. The a Biogenesis page here was
1:05:36
changed to take out the word evolutionary in front of the
1:05:39
word process that was in this first paragraph.
1:05:42
Because if you go to the 5 minute and two, second Mark of
1:05:46
this video, you see that I have the abiogenesis article on
1:05:50
screen and if you blow up my video to full page and you have
1:05:54
my video set to 1080p resolution, you can clearly see
1:05:58
that in the first paragraph. It says the abiogenesis is not a
1:06:03
single. Event but it is an evolutionary
1:06:06
process. So what just happened here live
1:06:10
and In Living Color is that evolutionist got tired of
1:06:14
creationist like myself pointing out that the abiogenesis page
1:06:18
says, the abiogenesis was an evolutionary process.
1:06:23
So sometime in the last couple of months, one of the Wikipedia
1:06:26
moderators, went into the abiogenesis article and remove
1:06:31
the word evolutionary from in front of Word process, but they
1:06:36
have not changed the evolution page on Wikipedia yet, as you
1:06:41
can see here, it says for evolution, this article is about
1:06:45
evolution in biology. So the evolution page on
1:06:49
Wikipedia is about biological evolution and when you go to The
1:06:54
evolutionary history of life section and you look under
1:06:58
origin of Life, subsection, there is a hyperlink to the A
1:07:04
Genesis article, in other words, abiogenesis is part of
1:07:10
biological evolution because of what Wikipedia says, on
1:07:15
abiogenesis and biological evolution.
1:07:18
We know for a fact that abiogenesis is part of
1:07:22
biological evolution because biological evolution could never
1:07:26
have occurred if abiogenesis never happened.
1:07:30
Therefore, when Paula Gia desperately tried to ban all Of
1:07:34
abiogenesis from a debate with a creationist on the topic.
1:07:38
He is not promoting an open honest discussion on Evolution.
1:07:42
He is literally picking and choosing which parts of
1:07:45
evolution are allowed to be discussed and which parts are
1:07:48
not just like these censorious authoritarian.
1:07:52
That is now, it is from the 824 Mark to the 10:32 Mark of this
1:07:58
video, where we see apologia say the following the reason why
1:08:02
Paula G makes These arguments is because he doesn't want to be
1:08:06
held accountable for his sins. Just that I'm very curious.
1:08:10
How tell me Justin, how does this tweet prove that I just
1:08:14
want to sin? How does this tweet by apologia
1:08:16
prove that he doesn't want to be held accountable for his sins?
1:08:20
That's what I. That's what I want to know.
1:08:22
That's what we're here for. Well, it's really quite simple
1:08:25
and is simply a crime that you committed against God, he can
1:08:30
either commit the crime against God directly or Can commit
1:08:34
against him, indirectly by committing a sin against another
1:08:38
human being. Thank you, Justin, that is
1:08:41
amazing. You are the first Christian on
1:08:43
this whole thing to properly Define at least in my old
1:08:47
Orthodox view, what Sin is Sin is a gap between how we behave
1:08:54
and how we think and how God wants us to behave in.
1:08:57
Think you get it. That is what sin is perfect.
1:09:00
Perfect. I couldn't have said it any
1:09:02
better myself. Well done.
1:09:04
But as Paula Gia points out, if God doesn't exist, the neither
1:09:08
this, because after all he sin is a crime you commit against
1:09:11
God. But if there's no God to commit
1:09:14
a crime against then obviously is fictitious, it doesn't.
1:09:19
Yeah, so he completely completely agrees with the first
1:09:23
part of my tweet. It's a simple if-then statement.
1:09:27
If there is no God then sin can't exist because the
1:09:30
definition of sin, is a grievance against God.
1:09:34
That's just a simple if then that could not be more true, it
1:09:38
doesn't say that God doesn't exist.
1:09:39
It said, if God does not exist, then this concept of sin is not
1:09:44
real. It's much like saying it was
1:09:46
probably a bad example but will Comics are my mind still if
1:09:49
there is no Planet Krypton. Then there is no Superman.
1:09:52
I think that's a fair statement, right?
1:09:55
And again, accepting the the DC Comics lure?
1:09:58
Think it's fair to say that without the planet to come from.
1:10:02
There can be no Superman. That's a That's a fair true
1:10:05
statement to make the same as my tweet in lore, all good.
1:10:10
So as we could see In that clip, Pas Le Jia Praises, me and
1:10:14
claims that, I am the first Christian on YouTube to properly
1:10:17
Define what sin is and while the praise the apologia gives me for
1:10:22
my sound. Theology.
1:10:24
Certainly feels good for my ego. I must respectfully.
1:10:28
Ask Paula Gia to stop. Praising me for my theological
1:10:31
sound this because if he doesn't pay, He's I am and standing for
1:10:35
True full, hold up this clip of Paula Gia as evidence that I've
1:10:39
sold out to the atheists to get their attention.
1:10:42
And in case Pas, Le Jia doesn't know what I'm talking about.
1:10:45
I would encourage him if he hasn't already to watch my
1:10:48
recent video. Praise.
1:10:49
I am and standing for truth falsely claimed, I sold out to
1:10:53
atheists for attention. She'll get a real kick out of
1:10:56
this video Paul, if you end up watching this now it is from the
1:11:00
1032 Mark to the 11:16 Mark of this video.
1:11:04
Where we see the following really exist and what's the
1:11:08
ultimate implication of all this?
1:11:10
Well, if there is God, and there is no crime against God to be
1:11:15
committed, I eat nose. And then obviously there is no
1:11:19
Creator. God, who's going to hold people?
1:11:21
Like Paula Gia accountable for the crimes that he commits
1:11:25
against him after he's done living his life on Earth.
1:11:29
Yeah, exactly. So again this is all just that
1:11:32
big if I'm not. Name is no God, Robert wheat
1:11:35
isn't same as though rather tweet saying if there is no God,
1:11:38
then the natural consequence is that sin doesn't exist and you
1:11:42
seem to be on board with this. So I don't know where the
1:11:45
problem lies and I don't know how this destroys my channel,
1:11:48
but I'm sure we will find him. So after watching my clip, where
1:11:52
I say, that accountability for sin doesn't exist, if God and
1:11:55
sin don't exist, Paula Gia says exactly in response to that
1:12:00
before he questions, where I am going with this.
1:12:04
So I just want to make an important note here before we go
1:12:07
any further that Paula Gia is not denying that accountability
1:12:11
for sin doesn't exist if God and sinned don't exist he's not
1:12:15
denying that at all and I just wanted to make a note of that
1:12:18
before we continued watching the video.
1:12:22
Now, we're going to watch the next 40 seconds.
1:12:25
It is avoidance of being held accountable for their sins, by
1:12:29
God, is at the heart of most atheists attacks on God's
1:12:33
character, especially when atheist pull out.
1:12:35
The will, you know, God ordered the destruction of the
1:12:38
Canaanites and God flooded the world committing Mass genocide.
1:12:42
The problem that these atheists face is that they really want to
1:12:46
commit some sins against God and other.
1:12:48
So you Justin promise that you be proving apology has motives
1:12:54
with Gio's own words and now you've just gone to most
1:12:59
atheists. Now, I don't actually
1:13:01
necessarily disagree that this is what most non believers would
1:13:04
do. So as we see in that clip,
1:13:07
apologia repeats his earlier, false claim that I had promised
1:13:12
that I was going to prove Pas Le Jia wanted to avoid
1:13:15
accountability for soon. Using only apology is own words
1:13:19
and then Pas Le Jia admits that my general observation I made
1:13:22
about the atheist community on the internet at least.
1:13:25
East is correct. As I pointed out much earlier in
1:13:28
the video, I never promised that I would be proving my points
1:13:32
about Paula Geo. Using only apology is own words
1:13:35
and that Paula GI had inserted the word, only into my mouth, so
1:13:39
that he could set up his straw man to tear down later in the
1:13:42
video. Well, we are much later in the
1:13:45
video now, and Paula Gia has returned to his straw, man.
1:13:49
It is from the 1156. Through the 1252 Mark apology as
1:13:53
video, or we see the following But you would need to go find
1:13:58
words where I say in either videos or tweets.
1:14:01
God is a moral monster because that is not an argument I use.
1:14:05
In fact I'm on record many times here in our College shows, a
1:14:09
lots of places that if I was shown that the god of the Bible
1:14:13
exists, I'm actually fine with his morality.
1:14:17
I think that the god described in the Bible has sufficient
1:14:21
justification. Sufficient authority to do
1:14:25
whatever he wants. Now, it does mean, that, that
1:14:27
God and Me disagree on, what is moral, what's not?
1:14:31
But that's fine. We would just have a difference
1:14:33
of opinion at that point, but I would need to defer to the
1:14:36
person who had the most power. And clearly God, the creator has
1:14:40
the authority and power me Paula G.
1:14:42
It does not II, don't make this argument, Justin, you are going
1:14:47
further afield. If you want to prove that me
1:14:50
apologia just wants to sin because it's not an argument I
1:14:52
make. So as we saw in that clip, Paula
1:14:55
Gia says That he has never claimed that.
1:14:57
God is a moral monster, and he seems to think that I'm saying
1:15:01
that he has made this argument in the past.
1:15:04
Now, this is a case where I have made a general observation about
1:15:09
the internet, atheist community in general, and Paula Gia
1:15:12
mistook that as a charge, that I am laying against him.
1:15:16
I have never claimed that Paula Gia has made this argument, at
1:15:20
any point in his time as an atheist content creator, if
1:15:24
Balaji I had ever made such a claim Mmmmmm.
1:15:26
I would have made a video about it and I would have presented
1:15:29
that video either in the video of mine that apology is
1:15:32
responding to or I would be presenting it right here in this
1:15:36
video. The fact that I have never made
1:15:38
such a video is strong evidence at this point, that Paula Gia
1:15:42
has never accused God of being a moral monster.
1:15:45
Now, it is from the 1252 Mark to the 14:05 mark of this video
1:15:50
where we see the following People but they know that they
1:15:54
can't justify their sins, if they acknowledge that God
1:15:58
exists, and that sin is a real thing because then they would be
1:16:01
forced to acknowledge that God is going to hold them
1:16:04
accountable for how they choose to live their lives in Rebellion
1:16:07
against him. So in, okay.
1:16:10
So this is just that weird if I want to avoid a consequence, I
1:16:13
just pretend that that consequence doesn't exist is a
1:16:16
very strange thing. So again, mentioned earlier so
1:16:19
I'm I was a cancer patient. I didn't Could be consequences
1:16:24
and the possible outcomes from that diagnosis.
1:16:27
Did I then just decide that? You know what I can avoid the
1:16:31
consequences of my cancer by pretending that I don't have
1:16:34
cancer. Is that a thing that a rational
1:16:36
human does? Now you may not think I'm
1:16:38
rational human. That's fine, but you can't think
1:16:40
that all people are irrational in this way.
1:16:43
That we know what the consequence of the thing is, but
1:16:46
we pretend that it's not. That's not how that works.
1:16:50
You aren't fully aware of a consequence of An action and
1:16:53
because I don't like it just choose to believe something
1:16:56
else. That's just not the way belief
1:16:57
works. That's not the way human nature
1:16:59
works. Again, if I'm convinced of a
1:17:01
consequence and I truly want to avoid that consequence, I do
1:17:04
take the action. So as we saw in that clip, Paula
1:17:09
G admits that, if God and sin exists, it is incredibly silly
1:17:13
to think you can avoid being held accountable for your sins
1:17:17
simply by pretending that God doesn't exist.
1:17:20
And he gives the cancer example as a way to Illustrate this
1:17:23
point. Well guess what?
1:17:24
Paul, I completely agree with you.
1:17:28
It is absolutely silly and ridiculous to think that you can
1:17:32
avoid being held accountable by God for your sins simply by
1:17:36
pretending, he doesn't exist apologia got that right?
1:17:41
What's funny though? Is that even though I agree with
1:17:44
Paul that it is absolutely ridiculous, to believe you can
1:17:47
avoid being held accountable for your sins by God, simply by
1:17:51
pretending that God doesn't Exist.
1:17:53
This silly logic is exactly what I see the atheist, internet
1:17:57
Community, communicating To Us by their actions every single
1:18:02
day. So yes, Paul, I agree with you
1:18:05
that the logic is silly, but that's what is communicated To
1:18:08
Us by your community, by your communities actions every single
1:18:13
day. So if you want us to stop
1:18:15
getting this idea, your community needs to change their
1:18:18
actions. Now, it is at this point in the
1:18:22
video, Go where things start to get really weird?
1:18:25
To be honest from the 1406, Mark to the 15:40 mark of the video.
1:18:31
We see pollachius say the following Order to soothe their
1:18:35
conscious. What they do is they deny that
1:18:37
God exists and then they deny that sin exists and by denying
1:18:41
at these two things exist. Well, then there is no one who's
1:18:45
going to hold them accountable for the the yeah, you got the
1:18:49
order of operations wrong. Justin, I was not looking to,
1:18:53
for a way to sin and then worked reverse-engineered.
1:18:56
A worldview. My worldview fell apart.
1:18:58
When I did not have enough evidence that God exists and
1:19:03
that When there wasn't sufficient evidence to that the
1:19:05
natural replication of those, oh, I guess this sin concept
1:19:09
isn't real either and therefore things that I was doing only
1:19:14
because the I believe there was a sin against God, I stopped
1:19:18
doing now, the thing that you'd also need to show, I think if
1:19:21
you want to say that Paula Gia specifically just wants to sin,
1:19:24
is that I am now acting in a way that you think that if that was
1:19:28
true, I would now be living this life of sin that my life,
1:19:32
drastically changed in some way. The shifted from Christianity
1:19:35
and it was hampering me too much.
1:19:36
And then I moved away to this. Having the boring part about me
1:19:39
is that I'm not actually living a lifestyle that is, you know, I
1:19:43
think in any way problematic with the second greatest
1:19:47
commandment, so love your neighbor as yourself.
1:19:48
Now, I know, I don't do it perfectly, none of us do, but I
1:19:51
generally try and live my life as loving my neighbor as myself
1:19:55
with empathy. I try to reduce harm and
1:19:57
increase. Flourishing, that is generally
1:20:00
my goal in How I Live. Obviously, I'm selfish at some
1:20:03
points. By the way, everyone is at the,
1:20:05
I was that way as a Christian to write.
1:20:07
So that's not a lifestyle. So, as we saw in that clip after
1:20:11
explaining how he rejects God's existence and doesn't honor the
1:20:14
commands that say to honor the Lord above all else, apologia
1:20:18
goes on to talk about what a good person.
1:20:20
He is because he doesn't live a hedonistic pleasure seeking
1:20:24
lifestyle, like a lot of unbelievers do.
1:20:26
And because he honors to the best of his ability, the
1:20:29
Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, my initial
1:20:33
reaction to In pollachius, say this was to raise my eyebrows in
1:20:37
a weird shock and I Ask Paula G on the screen.
1:20:40
Why are you telling me this? I have never postulated on my
1:20:45
channels at any point that I thought that Paula Gio was
1:20:48
living a pleasure filled hedonistic lifestyle.
1:20:51
So I initially had no idea. Why apology was telling me this.
1:20:56
However, as I will discuss in a bit, I got an idea of why
1:20:59
apologia is baring his soul to a little.
1:21:02
Nobody like me. Now, it is from the 1540, Mark
1:21:06
to the 16-minute. 14, second Mark of the video, where we see
1:21:10
Paula Gia, get a little cringy shift.
1:21:14
I am blessed in the weird, non-religious way.
1:21:17
I am assists, male, and so, I am very lucky that Christianity,
1:21:24
just accepts, who I am my identity.
1:21:27
I don't have to be put in the place where my identity is in
1:21:30
conflict with what the Bible says, that's just fortunate.
1:21:33
It for me, unfortunate, for many others.
1:21:35
For me, it's harder to point to, to say that, you know, oh, my
1:21:38
identity is a sis man is in Conflict, the Bible.
1:21:41
And that's why I rejected it know.
1:21:42
Like, you can't even point to that for me.
1:21:44
And as terrible as that all is. So just, wow, if you're doing to
1:21:48
try and prove the apology. So, as we saw in that clip
1:21:53
apologia repeatedly, identifies himself as a cisgender male
1:21:57
multiple times in a span of 34 seconds.
1:22:05
I don't know what else to say, Paul.
1:22:06
But by identifying yourself as a cisgender male, I'm afraid, I
1:22:11
have no choice but to report you to the MCA you're going to have
1:22:15
to stay in town. Why?
1:22:16
They conduct their investigation into you, so don't go anywhere.
1:22:20
Also don't be surprised if your membership card gets revoked.
1:22:26
What? Who is the MC, a why they are
1:22:30
the man card Association. Of course, you'll membership to
1:22:34
the Continental has been by thine own hand.
1:22:37
Revoked. Hey, something burning?
1:22:41
Oh, wait, it's you because you just got burned.
1:22:44
Now, it is from the 1614 marks to the 16 minutes, 53 seconds.
1:22:49
Mark of the video where we see the following, just, wow, if
1:22:53
you're going to try and prove the apology of does this show
1:22:55
me? I'm sitting now obviously there
1:22:57
are a few things in my life that, you know, I would need to
1:23:01
to have a quick wedding ceremony that would be fine.
1:23:03
There's a few tiny changes. I need to make to get in line
1:23:06
with Christian values. The main thing that I don't do
1:23:09
right now is the first part of that commandment love the Lord
1:23:12
your God with all your heart, all your heart, soul, mind and
1:23:14
strength, and the second part. Love your neighbor as yourself.
1:23:16
I think I'm doing as good as a human can do on that second
1:23:19
part. Not perfect but that's what I
1:23:21
try to do it is that first part that I would need to radically
1:23:23
change and but that is the part. That fell away and that is the
1:23:27
part that would instantly come back if I became convinced that
1:23:30
God existed. So his dad says we saw in that
1:23:32
clip Pas, Le Jia continues to claim that he's a good person
1:23:35
who tries to the best of his ability to follow the
1:23:39
commandment to honor his neighbor as himself.
1:23:42
And Paula Gia says that if someone could prove to him that
1:23:45
God existed, he would fall in line and keep all the commands
1:23:49
having to do. If honoring the Lord, in
1:23:50
addition to keeping the other commands now disregarding his
1:23:55
self, Identification as a cisgender male when I think
1:23:58
about what pollachius said, over the previous three minutes of
1:24:01
his video, he basically said that even though he doesn't
1:24:04
believe that God exists and even though he doesn't always follow
1:24:07
God's commands, especially the ones about honoring, the Lord
1:24:10
above all else, he touted himself as a good person, who
1:24:13
obeys the commands of have to do with loving your neighbor as
1:24:16
himself. He claims that he doesn't live a
1:24:18
hedonistic lifestyle, and he claims that if he could just be
1:24:22
proven to him that God exists, he would fall in line and obey.
1:24:25
Those commands that deal of honoring, the Lord above all
1:24:28
else. As I was watching, Paula Gia,
1:24:32
Lai all this out. I got the visual of a criminal
1:24:35
sitting in a courtroom before a judge who was about to convict
1:24:38
him of violating a court order and across from this criminal is
1:24:44
the prosecutor. Just imagine this criminal
1:24:48
taking the witness stand and saying to the prosecutor.
1:24:51
I know that I have violated a court order to cease having
1:24:53
contact with the victim, but I don't.
1:24:55
Believe that the judge who issued the order exists, so that
1:24:58
court order doesn't exist either.
1:25:00
I know that I have violated the court order that says, I have to
1:25:03
comply, if all the judge's orders, but I kept all the other
1:25:06
court orders in relation to my case.
1:25:08
And I'm a good person in general, who loves his neighbor
1:25:10
as himself. If you could successfully
1:25:13
convinced me that the judge exist, then I would fall in line
1:25:16
and follow the court order that says I have to follow the
1:25:19
judge's orders as well. Now, with a judge except the
1:25:22
line of reasoning by the criminal know the criminal.
1:25:25
You found in contempt of court by the judge and that criminal
1:25:28
would be off to prison by then. Now apology it would rightly
1:25:33
recognized in this. Hypothetical example, that the
1:25:35
line of reasoning used by the criminal is a weak pathetic
1:25:39
attempt to avoid being held accountable for the crimes that
1:25:41
they have committed. And yet this is the exact same
1:25:45
line of reasoning that Paula Gia himself uses to justify himself
1:25:50
before God, and this is where things got interesting those.
1:25:54
I thought about what he was saying, even though I am the one
1:25:58
that Paula Gia is speaking to in this video, it became obvious to
1:26:02
me that Paula G is not trying to justify himself to me with this
1:26:06
3 minute monologue. He went on apologia is really
1:26:10
trying to justify himself before God.
1:26:12
And since I happen to be the closest representative of God to
1:26:15
him, at that moment, by virtue of my video, being on his
1:26:18
computer screen, Paulette. She chose me to be the one to
1:26:22
lay this all out on now. It is from the Ten minute 53,
1:26:27
second Mark to the 18-minute six, second Mark of the video
1:26:31
where we see Paula, GSA. The following got the big thing
1:26:34
I wanted to do. I didn't want to believe God
1:26:36
exists. I didn't want to love him
1:26:39
anymore. So I'm denying his existence.
1:26:41
Does that make any sense is that the just want to sin that?
1:26:44
You think that is so circular it makes me dizzy.
1:26:47
That's a long enough, right? Let's continue things that they
1:26:49
do and the way that they choose to live their life, this is how
1:26:52
atheist can justify being double-minded.
1:26:55
It's who have major double standards.
1:26:58
This is why atheists and evolutionist can condemn
1:27:01
Christians and creationists for the very same things that
1:27:05
evolutionists themselves do. I don't know exactly what grapes
1:27:09
he has with me. Clearly, he's got a list of
1:27:11
grapes with me and maybe I need to go back dig in his library to
1:27:14
see what he thinks that I've been doing generally though.
1:27:16
When someone like myself, comment on Christian Behavior,
1:27:20
it is not because of double standard.
1:27:22
It is generally because of internal critique.
1:27:24
We are saying if Christianity is true and you believe
1:27:27
Christianity is true then to be consistent with Christianity,
1:27:30
should a Christian not act in a certain way, that's typically
1:27:34
the critique if and when I critique Christian Behavior All
1:27:36
which is rare, it's not it is merely internal, it's not a
1:27:40
double standard unless you can show me.
1:27:42
Otherwise I'd love to see this evidence in my own words.
1:27:46
So in that clip apologia claims that he does not have
1:27:50
hypocritical double standards when it comes to judging
1:27:53
Christians and creationists Paula.
1:27:55
Agia is lying when he says this. As I already showed earlier in
1:28:00
the video, apologia is a total hypocrite when it comes to
1:28:04
cancel culture tactics, because he used cancel culture tactics
1:28:07
against canham in 2017 before complaining about AIG using
1:28:12
cancel culture tactics on him in 2018 but let me provide one more
1:28:18
example of Paula Gia using hypocritical double standards
1:28:23
and for this double standard we have Return to biology is video
1:28:28
that he did the video that's titled if I debated Kent,
1:28:32
hovind, best evidence for evolution.
1:28:35
Now, in this video apology is said that Kent hovind would be
1:28:39
allowed to use science textbooks to define evolution for the
1:28:43
debate. But then later on in the video
1:28:45
apology is said that Kent was not allowed to use the evidence
1:28:49
for evolution that is provided by those same textbooks in their
1:28:53
debate apology is essentially Saying that the definitions of
1:28:57
evolution provided by the textbooks are valid enough to be
1:29:00
used in a debate but the evidence is for evolution
1:29:03
provided by those textbooks are not valid enough to be used in a
1:29:07
debates. Well here's the thing.
1:29:10
If the definitions of evolution provided by those textbooks or
1:29:14
valid enough to be used in a debate than the evidence for
1:29:17
those definitions of evolution, provided by those same textbooks
1:29:21
should be valid enough to be used in the debate.
1:29:24
But if the evidence Is for evolution.
1:29:26
Provided by those textbooks are not valid enough to be used in
1:29:30
the debate than the definitions of evolution.
1:29:32
Provided by those textbooks should not be used in a debate
1:29:36
either, either use the textbooks in their entirety or don't use
1:29:40
them at all. You don't get to pick and choose
1:29:42
which parts of the textbooks can or cannot be used in a debate
1:29:46
because that is self-serving and it is too easy to manipulate a
1:29:49
debate into your favor by controlling what's allowed to be
1:29:53
talked about this whole thing. Is a huge double standard by
1:29:57
Paula Gia that is intended to rig a potential future debate
1:30:01
with Kent hovind in his favor. And if you use this standard
1:30:05
against any creationist, it would be rigging the debate
1:30:08
potentially Impala G as favor. Now it is from the 1806 to the
1:30:13
1958, Mark of this video, where we see Paula, GSA the following
1:30:18
otherwise let's get to my words. See what I do.
1:30:20
As a matter of fact it is so bad atheists and evolutionists will
1:30:25
tell you Say, even if you can prove that, the biblical
1:30:28
worldview is true and that the atheistic evolutionary worldview
1:30:33
is false, they still won't accept the biblical worldview
1:30:36
and they will still reject the god of the Bible.
1:30:40
I do not profess that. I am on record multiple times.
1:30:43
I know some of my fellow content creators are so bold as to say
1:30:48
that. The god of the Bible is such a
1:30:50
monster that even if he was true, I was going to spit in his
1:30:52
eye on Judgement Day and say you're a moral monster.
1:30:55
I am I'm not that person, I am pragmatic.
1:30:58
If I come to believe that the god of the Bible is true.
1:31:01
As I mentioned earlier, I do think that someone with that
1:31:04
kind of level of authority can just do what they want.
1:31:07
And, therefore does make the rules.
1:31:09
And I would accept their rules under that proper Authority.
1:31:13
I'm not going to be that person and maybe a character flaw in
1:31:16
me. You may disagree with me on
1:31:17
this, but no, I if I come to leave the god Bible exists, I'm
1:31:21
not going to spit in his eye, I call him a moral monster.
1:31:23
I'm going to step in line so Unless you got video of me
1:31:27
saying, otherwise you are not talking about me even though
1:31:31
it's my name in the video If you don't believe me.
1:31:33
Well, let me give you just one example of this even though I
1:31:37
could give you more than one. Okay.
1:31:39
So perfect my own words, he's got examples.
1:31:42
I just asked for examples. Boom.
1:31:43
I'm going to get called out here rats.
1:31:45
What have I done? I have here a video from
1:31:48
Germania titled why? I don't argue against classical
1:31:52
theism or creationism a August, so that's not, that's not my
1:31:59
video. That's not my words.
1:32:01
Those it's not argument. So your many examples of how
1:32:05
apology is just wants this in is some video from a person I've
1:32:08
never heard of really. So as we saw in that clip, Paula
1:32:12
Gia says that he does not agree with his fellow atheists when
1:32:15
they say that they would still reject.
1:32:17
The god, the Bible even if it was proven to them, that he
1:32:19
existed. And Paula Gia seems to think
1:32:22
that I believe he agrees with his fellow atheists on this
1:32:25
because I put his name in the title of my video apologia, then
1:32:29
claims that I'm showing clips of someone else making the claim
1:32:33
when I was allegedly going to prove the apologia was making
1:32:36
the claim. As I have already explained at
1:32:38
the beginning of this video just because I apology as name in the
1:32:41
title of my video does not mean that I'm not going to talk about
1:32:44
things. I've observed in the general
1:32:46
atheist community, that Paula Gia may or may not be guilty.
1:32:50
Of apologia is the one who created a strawman of my
1:32:53
argument in the beginning. By falsely claiming that I said
1:32:57
that I was going to use. Only apology is words in this
1:33:00
video. Don't Worry, Paul.
1:33:02
If you've made it this far into this video you can see that this
1:33:05
video is almost entirely about you.
1:33:08
Just like you wanted an apology it to my knowledge has never
1:33:12
claimed that he would reject the god the Bible even if it could
1:33:15
be proven to Paul that he existed however, apologia rubs
1:33:19
elbows with and is part of the same internet.
1:33:21
Atheist Community full of atheist content creators who do
1:33:25
make those Claims if Paula Gia continues to stick around those
1:33:29
people, then there is still time for him to potentially come
1:33:33
around to their position, which is that, God is a moral monster.
1:33:37
And even if he could be proven to be true, I would still reject
1:33:39
him. There's still time for apologia
1:33:42
to come around to that position, especially if he keeps hanging
1:33:45
around the people who do hold to that position.
1:33:48
Now, as from the 1958 Mark to the 2033 Mark of the video where
1:33:52
we see pollachius, say the following When you see
1:33:56
evolutionists, an atheist like Paula Gia.
1:33:59
Tell you that they reject the biblical worldview because
1:34:03
there's no good evidence supporting its truthfulness or
1:34:05
God's existence or they tell you that Evolution and Atheism is
1:34:10
true because there's all this good evidence supporting it.
1:34:14
It's hilarious that you again, lumping evolutionists and
1:34:17
atheists together, because once again, hundreds of millions of
1:34:21
Christians, accept evolution based on the evidence and they
1:34:24
clearly We are not doing it because they want to reject God
1:34:27
because they accept God, so try again.
1:34:30
So as we see in that clip, Paula Gia returns to the argument that
1:34:34
theistic evolutionists believe in evolution in billions of
1:34:37
years. Despite the fact that they
1:34:39
allegedly accept God. As I have already explained
1:34:43
earlier in the video old Earth, creationists and theistic
1:34:46
evolutionists are Heretics and false teachers, who not only put
1:34:49
the majority opinion of these scientific and academic
1:34:52
community on a higher level of authority than the Bible.
1:34:55
On the issue of Origins. But they also admit that they re
1:34:58
interpret the Bible to make it fit their beliefs even though
1:35:02
they know they're not supposed to do that.
1:35:04
So nice tripod but I'm not a gullible fool like most of your
1:35:08
audience. I am way ahead of you on the
1:35:11
issue of older of creationism and that's because over the
1:35:14
years, I've made just as many or more videos, dealing with the
1:35:18
issue of older of creationism, that I have a theistic
1:35:21
Evolution. I also used to be an old Earth
1:35:24
creationist All right, before I started my career as a content
1:35:27
creator. So I have a unique insight into
1:35:30
older of creationism. Compared to most young Earth
1:35:33
creationists that you'll talk to on planet Earth.
1:35:36
Now, it is from the 2033 Mark to the 21:27.
1:35:39
Mark apology as video, where we see the following that is all a
1:35:44
crop that is a pack of lies. That is just an intellectual
1:35:48
smokescreen. The real Croc eyes, a pack of
1:35:52
Lies. Intellectual smokescreen reason
1:35:56
why people like Paula Gia reject the biblical worldview and the
1:35:59
real reason why people like Paula G except atheism,
1:36:03
Evolution and deep time is because they're trying to avoid
1:36:08
being held accountable for their sins.
1:36:11
So, you haven't proven that with my own words, as you Almost at
1:36:14
all. You've made a conjecture based
1:36:15
on a tweet, which you actually agree with the content to the
1:36:18
Tweet. You just think, somehow, you
1:36:20
know, my heart and why I tweeted it which is just bizarre.
1:36:24
You haven't shown that. I am currently living a
1:36:27
lifestyle of sin. Other than that, I do reject
1:36:29
God. So that's and I hold and will
1:36:31
change. If I come to believe in him, are
1:36:33
you, you're not using my own words, you're not proving
1:36:35
anything other than your own ideas.
1:36:38
So as we see in that clip Pas Le Jia claims that it is bizarre
1:36:42
that I think is I know apology is heart apology event says that
1:36:46
I have not proven that he is living a hedonistic lifestyle
1:36:49
before apology admits that he has sinned against God by
1:36:52
denying his existence. Now, I have never once claimed
1:36:56
in any of my videos that Paula Gia himself lives a hedonistic
1:36:59
lifestyle. So I have zero idea why apologia
1:37:03
thinks that I have then again this could be just another straw
1:37:07
man that apology is making of me in order to make himself look
1:37:10
like the winner in this back and forth.
1:37:13
Discussion But since apology, I brought up his heart, let's talk
1:37:17
briefly about our hearts. If Balaji and knows the
1:37:20
scriptures as well as he portrays himself to and his
1:37:22
content, then he knows full well that the Bible teaches that the
1:37:25
human heart is deceitful and Beyond cure, Jeremiah 17:9.
1:37:31
He also knows that Jesus taught that thinking about sinning is
1:37:34
itself sin. For example, Jesus taught that
1:37:37
merely lusting after a woman in your heart is the same as
1:37:40
committing adultery with her Matthew 5:27.
1:37:43
Even through 28, I know I'm guilty of violating that
1:37:46
teaching and I can guarantee that Paula Gia violated that
1:37:50
teaching as well, especially when, you know, his girlfriend
1:37:54
Shannon Q. The Atheist content creator who
1:37:56
bragged a couple years ago about starting a new religion that's
1:38:00
based on sexual pleasure. Yeah, even if Paula Gia has
1:38:05
never lived, a Hedon hedonistic lifestyle even if he's lived in
1:38:10
ethically, good life. He knows full well that God
1:38:14
condemns him as a sinner just based on his thoughts apology
1:38:19
and knows that he has thought about sending in the ways that
1:38:22
Bible describes his sin and he knows that that alone is enough
1:38:27
to condemn him because the god, the Bible doesn't demand
1:38:30
Perfection with just your That you speak verbally and your
1:38:34
actions and your behavior, he also demands Perfection
1:38:38
internally, he demands Perfection with your thoughts
1:38:42
and by that standard we all fail.
1:38:45
Now it is over the next 19 seconds that we see the
1:38:48
following. So we know in reality that even
1:38:51
if they delude themselves into thinking that God doesn't exist,
1:38:55
right? And the other thing, the
1:38:56
stupidest thing I could possibly do and maybe you think that I am
1:38:59
just the stupidest human on earth that maybe that's true.
1:39:02
But the stupidest thing I could do is know that I'm going to be
1:39:05
held accountable for my sins and just pretend that I'm not.
1:39:09
So as we saw that 19 second clip apologia admits that he would
1:39:14
have to be pretty stupid to know that he's going to be held
1:39:17
accountable for his sins and then pretend that he's not going
1:39:20
to be held accountable for his sins by pretending that God and
1:39:23
sinned, don't exist. I agree if you Paul that is
1:39:25
pretty stupid but the problem with you claiming this is the
1:39:29
things you've already said in admitted to in this video.
1:39:33
You've already denied that God exists, you've already
1:39:38
acknowledged that sin doesn't exist because you don't believe
1:39:41
that God exists. When I pointed out that
1:39:44
accountability for sin doesn't exist if God and sinned don't
1:39:46
exist. You said yeah in response.
1:39:49
So obviously you currently believe that you're not going to
1:39:52
be held accountable for your sins or the way that you choose
1:39:56
chose to live your life when you die, you claimed earlier in the
1:40:00
video that we current humans are all Apes.
1:40:02
Which is An argument that someone trying to avoid
1:40:04
accountability for their sins with make.
1:40:06
And we also see you spend close to three minutes attempting to
1:40:11
justify Yourself by talking about what a good person.
1:40:14
You are, in spite of your rejection of God, which is
1:40:17
exactly the kind of behavior. I would expect to see from
1:40:20
someone who is attempting to make a case to God for the
1:40:22
purpose of avoiding accountability for sin.
1:40:26
So, by Paul's own admissions throughout this video, he is
1:40:30
doing the very things one does. In the most pathetic attempt in
1:40:34
history to avoid accountability for his sins.
1:40:39
I'm sorry, Paul, but you're doing the things that one does
1:40:42
when they're trying to avoid accountability for sin,
1:40:45
including the part where you claim that we're all apes and
1:40:48
you tried to justify what a good person.
1:40:50
You were in. Spite of your rejection of God,
1:40:53
those are things a person does when they're trying to avoid
1:40:55
accountability for sin and you might not like hearing that, but
1:40:59
that's the way it is. And that's what the fruit of
1:41:01
your actions is. Now we are going to look at the
1:41:04
final clip of this video, which goes from the 21 minute. 46
1:41:08
second Mark to the 22-minute 22 second Mark where we see the
1:41:12
following it doesn't take much thought and brain it.
1:41:16
If I'm convinced that I'm going to be held accountable for us in
1:41:20
that. I just accept Jesus and keep on
1:41:23
sinning now. Probably, you know, again if I'm
1:41:26
a True Believer of Jesus, I'm going to want to send less,
1:41:28
that's, you know, that's typically the argument and
1:41:30
whatever and that's why that'd be great.
1:41:31
But The Christians who have consequence-free ways of sinning
1:41:37
the correct strategy to avoid the consequences of sin is to
1:41:40
become a Christian? No, two ways about it.
1:41:42
And so if I become convinced, that sin is a real and the God
1:41:45
is real. That is what I will, at least
1:41:47
the god of the Bible. That is what I will do.
1:41:50
That's the biggest load of bull I've ever heard.
1:41:52
So as we saw in that final clip, Pas Le Jia claims that, if you
1:41:56
want to avoid accountability for your sins then becoming a
1:42:00
bible-believing, Christian is the better option than An
1:42:02
atheistic, evolution. I seriously hope that Paula Gia
1:42:07
is just trolling me for Giggles when he made this claim because
1:42:10
if he did, then he and I can have a laugh together and move
1:42:13
on if our lives. But if Balaji is being serious,
1:42:17
when he makes this claim, then all I have to say to Paul is
1:42:20
that you are a big fat liar and you know that you're lying.
1:42:26
All one has to do to figure out the apologia is a lying sack of
1:42:29
crap. When he claims that biblical
1:42:32
Christianity is a better option than a theistic In, for avoiding
1:42:36
accountability, for sin is to Simply compare the biblical
1:42:40
worldview to the atheistic evolutionary worldview.
1:42:43
That Paula Geo holds to. Now, in the biblical worldview,
1:42:46
God exists in exists and accountability for sin exists.
1:42:51
Not only is most of the world going to the lake of fire, but
1:42:53
most people who call themselves Christians are going there to
1:42:56
According To Jesus. Furthermore, the god, the Bible
1:43:00
is present everywhere on Earth and in the universe and he can
1:43:04
see into the deepest darkest parts of our minds and hearts.
1:43:07
He knows everything. We think he sees everything we
1:43:10
do, he sees everywhere we go and he knows our every desire
1:43:15
because of this, God knows when someone genuinely submits to him
1:43:20
and he knows. When someone is only pretending
1:43:22
to submit to him, in order to avoid accountability for their
1:43:25
sins. Now apologia could Argue that
1:43:29
people who repent of their sins, except the gospel and submit to
1:43:31
Jesus, avoid accountability for their sins when they do so.
1:43:35
Well, even if we just accept, Balaji is claim at face value,
1:43:39
the biblical worldview still has, most of the people, the
1:43:42
world being held accountable for their sins, which includes every
1:43:45
disingenuous person who views the faith as a get out of jail
1:43:49
free card to avoid accountability for their past,
1:43:51
present and future sins. Even if there was a way to avoid
1:43:56
accountability for sin in the biblical world view of Having
1:43:59
genuine Faith. There is way too much work
1:44:02
involved to make it a feasible, option in the atheistic
1:44:06
evolutionary worldview. However, there is no God, there
1:44:10
is no sin and there is therefore no accountability for sin.
1:44:13
There is also no objective moral standard outside of the
1:44:16
individual, or Collective human mind to judge actions behaviors
1:44:20
and thoughts as objectively, right, or wrong.
1:44:23
You can literally do whatever you desire, as long as you can
1:44:27
get away with it before you die. Why?
1:44:28
Because we're all just Apes. Anyway, it is way easier to
1:44:32
avoid accountability for sin, by accepting the atheistic
1:44:36
evolutionary worldview, because all you have to do, is believe
1:44:39
in the atheistic evolutionary worldview.
1:44:41
You don't have to change your heart's desires or your behavior
1:44:44
in order to avoid accountability for sin.
1:44:47
And the atheistic evolutionary worldview, you're automatically
1:44:51
exempt from any accountability for a fictitious crimes.
1:44:54
Committed against a fictitious, God from the beginning.
1:44:56
So if I want to Avoid accountability for my sins and I
1:45:01
have to choose between the biblical worldview and the
1:45:03
atheistic evolutionary worldview, I will go with the
1:45:06
atheistic evolutionary worldview.
1:45:08
Every single time, it is the past of least resistance and it
1:45:13
requires far less work than the biblical worldview in order to
1:45:17
avoid accountability for sin. So now, we are at the conclusion
1:45:21
of the video or as some people like to call it the heart of the
1:45:25
matter. And what I have to say here in
1:45:27
conclusion after Are watching all this after responding to all
1:45:31
apology is claims and arguments, this is what I concluded after
1:45:36
watching this video Pas Le Jia made in response to me and going
1:45:39
through everything in it. I have concluded that Paula Gia
1:45:43
is a confused man who is at War to some extent with himself
1:45:47
internally. On the one hand we have seen
1:45:50
apologia is a censorious authoritarian who practices
1:45:53
hypocritical double standards. We have also seen Paula Gia Lai
1:45:57
about my Commence by creating a straw man version of them to
1:46:01
knock them down, throughout his video.
1:46:03
Paul has also denied God's existence to such an extent that
1:46:07
he claims that we are all Apes instead of human beings made in
1:46:10
the image of God apology has a lot.
1:46:13
He has to answer to God for, but on the other hand, we have also
1:46:18
seen Paula Gia tried to justify himself by talking about what a
1:46:22
good person. He is and how he would fall
1:46:24
right back in line of the biblical worldview, that could
1:46:27
be proven that God. It's it's almost like Paula Gia
1:46:30
is pleading to God to prove that he exists because a part of
1:46:34
Paula Geo wants to believe in the biblical worldview wants to
1:46:38
believe in Jesus in The Gospel wants to be a good
1:46:41
bible-believing Christian. Otherwise Paula Gia would not
1:46:45
have admitted to trying to follow the commands of the
1:46:47
biblical worldview. They have nothing to do with
1:46:50
honoring. The Lord above all else, a man
1:46:53
who is fully cut himself off from his past?
1:46:55
Faith does not try to justify himself like that.
1:46:58
At as far as I can tell based on my current knowledge base in my
1:47:03
past experiences, I'd say there is a 50/50 chance that Paula G
1:47:07
is stays in. Atheist his whole life versus
1:47:10
Pas Le Jia becoming a Christian. Again, part of apology is heart
1:47:14
is very hard against the Lord, but there is still a part of
1:47:17
Paul's heart that is soft for the Lord.
1:47:20
If you are a Christian hearing this, you should be praying that
1:47:23
the soft part apology is heart overtakes the rest of his heart.
1:47:27
If you're an atheist Atheist or evolutionist watching this, you
1:47:30
should be scared spitless by what you're hearing and you
1:47:33
should be tempted to pray. That the hard part of Paula G is
1:47:36
heart, squashes out the soft part as far as I can tell,
1:47:40
apologia is smarter than most, if not all of you, he's the most
1:47:43
articulate of you and he understands philosophy in the
1:47:46
Bible, better than most of you apologia is probably the most
1:47:51
effective atheist apologist on the internet.
1:47:54
And yet, there is a chance that he could swing back to the Lord
1:47:57
later on in his life. Even though I have to bring this
1:48:00
video response to apologia to a close the war for people's Souls
1:48:04
rages on and until the Lord returns.
1:48:08
It's not over yet but the war goes on.
1:48:14
Over. Small.
1:49:42
Well, hello, ladies and gentlemen.
1:49:43
My name is Brett keen and you are listening and watching the
1:49:46
Brett King show when you get an opportunity, check me out on the
1:49:50
radio. You can simply do that by going
1:49:52
to the links in my description. While you're checking out my
1:49:55
radio. You can check out my books and
1:49:57
if you feel like you want to support my time and my work and
1:50:00
my videos, you can do a monthly payment on the patreon or you
1:50:06
can do one time donation through PayPal, anything helps you can
1:50:11
donate At a buck donate, a million bucks and you can make
1:50:14
the Keens life. Exciting also sell merchandise
1:50:20
Well, let's get on with the video pokes.
1:50:25
Last night I was going to be doing a live show,
1:50:29
unfortunately, the lights and electricity went out and
1:50:34
Missouri. There's been a lot of tornadoes
1:50:36
lately, any of you can look that up and apparently, someone had a
1:50:44
Car accident, and destroyed a bunch of generators in Missouri.
1:50:48
So all night long, my electricity's been out.
1:50:52
Yep. I woke up in the total dead of
1:50:55
silence and darkness. Well, whenever I woke up this
1:50:59
morning, everything was back on. Thank God.
1:51:03
And I noticed something, aren't one of my subscriptions.
1:51:09
There's a YouTube user. I've been watching and listening
1:51:12
to lately, he calls himself a friend makes music and he's got
1:51:17
a really popular video out there called hiren.
1:51:20
The videos about a guy who is wearing what appears to be
1:51:24
hospital scrubs. He comes out with an acoustic
1:51:28
guitar sitting in a wheelchair and then he starts playing some
1:51:35
like acapella music. It's got one single instrument,
1:51:41
the acoustic guitar. The song is very unusual.
1:51:46
Very strange different than anything you've probably ever
1:51:49
heard before and he chooses several different styles and
1:51:53
Arrangement on how he's going to sing the song.
1:51:57
From what I get from the lyrics, the lyrics seem to be suggesting
1:52:03
that a Anna's having a struggle or a debate with himself, his
1:52:09
own subconscious and ego. It's an interesting song.
1:52:14
It's been done a few times such as by bands, like Marilyn
1:52:18
Manson. It's been done by Eminem.
1:52:21
It's been done by Megadeth and a song called sweating bullets on
1:52:24
The Countdown to Extinction album.
1:52:27
So that particular idea is nothing new but the way Ren does
1:52:32
it. With just an acoustic guitar and
1:52:35
kind of mimicking, the personalities of his
1:52:39
subconscious and what he truly sounds like going back and forth
1:52:43
with them self makes an interesting.
1:52:46
Well the reason why I bring this up is I didn't just want to
1:52:49
review the guys music but I wanted to talk about the
1:52:52
aggravation that he's now going through because his video is
1:52:55
blown to the roof. It's been featured, everything
1:52:59
else on YouTube. YouTube apparently is allowed at
1:53:04
Olga rhythms to climb all over his YouTube channel.
1:53:09
Many YouTubers out there, mostly conservatives are finding
1:53:13
themselves demonetized, they're finding their videos removed by
1:53:17
YouTube, because YouTube is no longer being used by people
1:53:23
anymore are developed by people to being developed by a, i AI
1:53:28
has the ability, their artificial intelligence unit.
1:53:32
As the ability to, even if you don't put your lyrics in the
1:53:36
subtitle, it can now recognize the words that are coming out of
1:53:40
your mouth locally. So if you make a video and
1:53:43
you're talking about something and you mentioned certain words,
1:53:46
the algorithm will deliberately start posting.
1:53:50
Giant stamps all over your video like for instance, Ren's video
1:53:55
ended up getting a bunch of Suicide Hotline crap.
1:53:58
All over his video If you go look at it right now and scroll
1:54:01
down, Down, you're going to see that he's got all these pop-ups
1:54:06
and information. If you go to watch his video you
1:54:09
won't find it normally anymore. It'll tell you that you have to
1:54:13
be of a certain age and an adult to see it.
1:54:15
It's been age-restricted interesting about it is that
1:54:21
there's nowhere in the song where rent actually talks about
1:54:24
killing himself in the song, he's talking about how he
1:54:29
struggling against an evil part of Solve for a dark part of
1:54:33
himself and he wants to get rid of the darkness, not get rid of
1:54:38
his entire self, but it's an imaginative, creative expression
1:54:43
of music and YouTube that couldn't be bothered to even
1:54:49
look into it to find out what actually the song is about.
1:54:53
They just boom, put it all out there.
1:54:56
I think it's because there's so many people who left the
1:54:58
comments who basically mention that they Struggle with themself
1:55:03
and their own life and who they are.
1:55:04
As a person, the comments themselves.
1:55:07
Even though they have nothing to do with the video, have
1:55:11
basically brought consequences to the guys YouTube channel.
1:55:17
As far as I know his most important and big videos haven't
1:55:21
been removed. But I did notice that Temple and
1:55:26
Matt Walsh and a bunch of other people.
1:55:29
They lost their accounts for a short while there.
1:55:32
Luckily for Tim pull and Matt wash and like most YouTubers out
1:55:36
there, they've got the money and a company behind them that can
1:55:40
protect them and go after YouTube for this kind of
1:55:43
problem. This issue I Back to see
1:55:46
millions of other YouTube users affected by a non-emotional mom
1:55:52
feeling algorithm that goes to their videos.
1:55:58
Another interesting thing has happened The same guy see
1:56:04
they're putting the suicide labels and stamps all over his
1:56:07
channel even though that's not what is videos about.
1:56:13
And CNN the liberal big giant conglomerate News company ended
1:56:20
up reviewing his music video, they don't play as music video.
1:56:25
They just simply say that YouTube is promoting suicide and
1:56:29
all this kind of stuff. and that is, That this is the kind of
1:56:36
according to them, the kind of fill that plays on it.
1:56:40
The song is fantastic. It's a genius.
1:56:44
But I remember CNN a while back. I don't know if a lot of you
1:56:47
knew this but couple years back, they actually featured me on
1:56:52
CNN. They put me on there and what it
1:56:55
was talking about is there was a big thing while back, where a
1:56:59
lot of folks who are concerned about the end of the world
1:57:02
coming. They were concerned about
1:57:05
something happening in like 2 to 20 or something like that way.
1:57:10
Back in the day that something horrible was going to happen to
1:57:14
our part of the universe. Well, for whatever reason, they
1:57:17
decided to take a clip out of the movie review that I was
1:57:20
doing about the end of the world and put it on there, making it
1:57:24
appear as though Brett Keane was talking about the actual end of
1:57:27
the world. When I wasn't, I was talking
1:57:30
about a film that was talking about the world in peril.
1:57:36
Well, they done it again. They misrepresented this guy
1:57:41
this popular YouTuber aren't CNN and I don't suspect they'll
1:57:45
apologize for it that they'll care.
1:57:48
Imagine that you're making a video and you're talking about
1:57:51
something going on in the news and then suddenly while the news
1:57:55
is doing some kind of new story, they decide to cut out specific
1:57:59
parts of your video and then make it appear as though you're
1:58:03
actually representing their story or whatever.
1:58:06
Attend other time to push. It's pretty ignorant, it's lame.
1:58:11
And you would think that if News company, our YouTube would even
1:58:14
take a couple minutes to actually watch the video and set
1:58:17
it just chop out Parts. It can go somewhere.
1:58:22
But you know what? To be fair, although CNN has
1:58:25
been known to do this and YouTube has been known to do
1:58:28
this. It's also known that a lot of
1:58:30
YouTubers have to do this all the time to each other on the
1:58:34
internet. They'll cut out sir.
1:58:36
Parts of your video and audio and then make it appear as a,
1:58:39
you doing something, sexual or ignorant, or trying to push this
1:58:44
idea. Or maybe they'll take one little
1:58:47
part out that they think they can mock, or make fun of and not
1:58:51
actually deal with the information that's in the video
1:58:55
or what it's trying to represent.
1:58:57
It's called dishonesty folks, it's called bullshit and it's
1:59:01
called using other people's work in order to make a buck which
1:59:05
scene NN and YouTube is not against.
1:59:09
Hmm man. My sinuses are a little wrapped
1:59:14
up, didn't have any heat all night because of the cold
1:59:20
Electricity, let me see something.
1:59:24
Okay, let's take a look at the lyrics of this particular track
1:59:31
and you tell me if you get the idea that has anything to do
1:59:34
with suicide and make sure you check out the video to I'll post
1:59:38
it. And it says hi there ran.
1:59:40
It's been a little while. Did you miss me?
1:59:42
He thought you buried me, didn't you risky?
1:59:44
Because I always come back, deep down, you know, that deep down,
1:59:47
you know, I'm always in. Periphery ran aren't you?
1:59:51
Pleased to see me it's been weeks since we spoke Pro.
1:59:54
You know you need me. You're the Sheep on the
1:59:56
shepherd, not the place to lead me, not your place to be biting
2:00:01
off the hand. That feeds me Iran.
2:00:04
I've been talking taking some time to be distant.
2:00:08
I've been taking time to be still.
2:00:10
I've been taking some time to be myself since my therapist told
2:00:13
me, I'm Ill. I've been making some progress
2:00:17
lately, and I've learned some new Coping skills.
2:00:20
So I haven't really needed you much, man.
2:00:22
I think we need to just step back and chill.
2:00:26
Ran, you sound more insane than I do.
2:00:29
You think that those doctors are really there to guide?
2:00:31
You been through this a million times.
2:00:34
Your civilian mind is so perfect.
2:00:36
That always being lied to. Okay, take another pill boy,
2:00:40
drown yourself in the sound of white noise.
2:00:43
Follow this 10-step program rejoiced.
2:00:46
All your problems will be gone fucking dumb boy.
2:00:49
Ma'am mate. This Time It's Different man.
2:00:52
Trust me. I feel like things might be
2:00:54
falling in place and my musics been kind of doing bits to.
2:00:59
Like I actually might be doing something great, and when I'm
2:01:02
gone, maybe I'll be remembered for doing something special with
2:01:06
myself. That's why I don't think that we
2:01:09
should talk, man, because when you're with me, it never seems
2:01:13
to help you think that you can amputate me.
2:01:17
I am you. You are me.
2:01:19
URI. I am we We Are One split into
2:01:23
that makes one. So you see me.
2:01:25
You got the, you got the kill you, if you want to kill me.
2:01:29
I'm not leftover dinner. I'm not scraps on the side.
2:01:33
Oh, your music is thriving. Delusionary guy, there's your
2:01:36
top 10. Hit what your interview with
2:01:39
Oprah? Where are your grams or and
2:01:43
nowhere? Okay so it goes on it's got a
2:01:46
lot of words and a lot of lyrics and And people can check it out
2:01:52
for yourself but there's nowhere in there where it's actually
2:01:55
talking about suicide. It's actually talking about a
2:01:58
negative side of his personality that he's trying to get rid of
2:02:03
so he can prosper. The video is about a man who's
2:02:06
been struggling for a long time and he's been going to doctors
2:02:10
and therapists who is trying to get help and change his ways.
2:02:16
He's actually talking about hope.
2:02:18
If you listen all the way to the end of this 9 minute song.
2:02:22
He starts talking about the good he can do in the world.
2:02:26
And the gut he does for himself. I don't know I don't know how
2:02:31
anybody could see it. Any other way, the very artistic
2:02:34
piece but the lyrics are very clear with the stories is trying
2:02:39
to tell and what's unfolding. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm
2:02:43
having some sinus issues. Let me know in the future if you
2:02:46
want to do some more live shows, I will host them.
2:02:50
Are my front page and then people will have a time when
2:02:54
they'll be able to get Evolved and participate in the show.
2:02:58
I would prefer that people get a microphone come in and hang out
2:03:01
with me. God bless.
2:04:22
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Brett keen and you
2:04:25
are watching and listening to the Brett Keen show.
2:04:28
If you'd like to support my work.
2:04:30
You can become a patron or you can do one time donation to
2:04:33
PayPal. Don't forget to check out my
2:04:36
radio station. If you want to hear the real
2:04:38
filthy shit that I'm up to and also there's a lot of awesome
2:04:42
YouTubers out there who've given permission for me to put them on
2:04:46
the radio as well. You'd be surprised he might hear
2:04:49
and find the, oh, yeah. So what are we looking at here,
2:04:54
ladies and gentlemen? Well, this is called men who
2:05:01
identify as babies and they wear diapers, and bibs and sucked her
2:05:07
thumb, and they have their wives or girlfriends or whatever it
2:05:12
is. Whatever it is.
2:05:14
And they make baby food and they throw little tantrums and they
2:05:19
even shut their diaper. So the wife or girlfriend can
2:05:23
change them, so they can get fully immersed, and what it's
2:05:27
like to be an infant or newborn or some of them like to be
2:05:30
toddlers, usually baby. So Yeah, so hmm.
2:05:40
I mean, what do you say about this?
2:05:43
Racine a video, mr. Adam lore.
2:05:47
He actually gave me a video to watch at this YouTuber who
2:05:52
claims that some of these people out here.
2:05:54
These transgenders they have a genetic disposition towards
2:06:00
being female male, whatever the case might be, and the word that
2:06:06
they gave for it was Shamira. So I believe or chimeras now,
2:06:12
strangely Now, as I've told you all in the past, I've watched a
2:06:16
lot of CSI, Law and Order. A lot of shows with my daughter,
2:06:21
and that particular word was brought up quite a few times
2:06:25
during the show as well as on a popular show called Amsterdam.
2:06:31
That's about the medical field in hospitals and it has nothing
2:06:36
to do with transgenders whatsoever.
2:06:38
What it is is if you find that there's a male that It has like
2:06:44
this, some form of what appears to be female genetics.
2:06:49
It's because sometimes, when a woman gets pregnant, she will
2:06:54
have twins or quadruplets or, you know, more than one baby
2:06:58
inside the womb and unfortunately, sometimes an
2:07:02
issue happens where one of the babies died and then it's
2:07:07
absorbed into the other child. It doesn't mean they were
2:07:11
blueprinted the end up like that.
2:07:13
And it doesn't mean that a child was meant to have those.
2:07:18
The cell structure, this Gene, what happened?
2:07:23
As is basically the cells and genetics of the prior child and
2:07:30
up being absorbed and basically becoming a part of it.
2:07:36
This is what you would refer to. Some would refer to as a
2:07:40
mutation, which most actual professional, scientists who
2:07:45
deal in. Evolution would tell you that
2:07:48
claiming the something mutated or it changed unnaturally due to
2:07:53
radiation or some kind of problem.
2:07:56
In the environment wouldn't be an actual natural process.
2:08:00
What it they would be something that causes deformities or
2:08:05
issues are handled. Handicaps that's not considered
2:08:08
Evolution. That's just considered a
2:08:12
physical problem. That unfortunately the sins of
2:08:15
the parents came down in the child kind of ordeal.
2:08:21
It is what it is. Yeah.
2:08:25
So you've got adults out here. We're identifying as babies
2:08:29
identifying as having a different Age and what they are,
2:08:33
you know, one of the things I don't understand.
2:08:36
Have you noticed that most transgenders as well as I
2:08:40
noticed, a lot of homosexuals at least in social media, they seem
2:08:44
to be very selfish, very selfish.
2:08:48
They want everybody to accept them but they're not willing to
2:08:51
accept other people's opinions views, nor criticism if you find
2:08:57
out that your child wants to wear diapers and act like a damn
2:09:01
fool like this guys doing of course you're going to have
2:09:05
something To say, you know, you hear all these sad stories about
2:09:10
how homosexuals are transgenders, are mistreated in
2:09:13
the household by Mom and Dad and the rest of the family, but I
2:09:18
after listening to a lot of them speak and their aggressiveness
2:09:22
and their control issues narcissism, I think that a lot
2:09:27
of these people, they get rejected or abandon or kicked
2:09:32
out of the house. Not because of their sexuality.
2:09:36
But because of their attitude and personality.
2:09:39
So way it's always been for the last couple thousand years, you
2:09:42
know, that's went by, if parents can't get control over their
2:09:46
child, if they can't get their child to behave itself and it
2:09:50
keeps acting like an orangutan sooner or later you gotta, you
2:09:54
know, you gotta make a move, you gotta kick them out.
2:09:57
The damn door, they're going to end up like this for.
2:09:59
They want to be taken care of, by Mommy.
2:10:01
All damn day. It's sad.
2:10:05
And why doesn't anybody ever feel sad for the wives and the
2:10:08
girlfriends of the women who they're married for?
2:10:12
All these many years and they even have children with these
2:10:15
jackasses. And then these people turn
2:10:18
around at 56 years old and say, no, I'm a baby.
2:10:21
I'm a newborn I want to be taking care of him, play fucking
2:10:24
teddy bears and shit. Could you imagine being married
2:10:28
to someone all your life? And then they tell you that they
2:10:33
now, Now they're gay or they think they're a woman or they
2:10:38
need to be wearing diapers and shit in their pants and expect
2:10:41
you to use white Peas on their bottom.
2:10:44
What a fucking nightmare. No, thank you, sir.
2:10:48
Well, that's all I can say about the shit.
2:10:50
Ladies and gentlemen, what's your opinion?
2:10:52
God, bless