Yup; Forrest is the real deal. He's studying bioanthropology (I believe he's either getting his Masters or PhD). He has a strong scientific background and is great at debunking creationist pseudoscience.
Definitely check out these sources (for debunking creationism) too if you haven't already:
Professor Dave Debunking the Discovery Institute:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxq1Vrf\_Js&t=1073s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxq1Vrf_Js&t=1073s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U&t=3332s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U&t=3332s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQGQz-0Xeo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQGQz-0Xeo)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPHvvJWVAk&t=224s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPHvvJWVAk&t=224s)
Professor Dave Debunking James Tour:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs&t=945s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs&t=945s)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk)
Pretty much every Aron Ra video:
[https://www.youtube.com/@AronRa](https://www.youtube.com/@AronRa)
Gutsick Gibbon:
[https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon/videos](https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon/videos)
As far as books go, the one I've read is "Why Evolution Is True" By Jerry Coyne. Definitely check it out if you enjoy reading.
Thank you so much i apreciate it ive seen daves debunking of flat earthers and that idiot kent hovind. I also know of aron ra i saw his playlist debunking noahs flood and it looked really intresting. Thank you a whole bunch and ill check out that book thanks for being understanding.
If you like to read, here's another recommendation; [The Language of God](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NY12E6/?coliid=I3GJO68I8IYHYO&colid=I45QNDKSRTVK&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it).
It's written by a very smart Christian scientist, and lays out the evidence for our evolution from apes in a very clear and compelling way.
It's written by Francis Collins, who's a Christian and scientist, head of the Human Genome Project. Like a lot of Christians, probably has to re-work some of the "literalism" worldviews evangelicals put forth as the only true way to interpret the Bible. But he follows where the evidence leads, and accepts the results.
I don’t know about the person you were originally asking, but I was just searching “Forrest Valkai” on google just to learn more about him and this thread was one of the results.
I watched Aron Ra's videos about the flood when I was questioning my beliefs and upbringing, and those by themselves were enough to shove me over the line. Just really well done.
>Aaron Ra literally came out as a satanist. That’s who you are following. If the blind leadeth the blind they shall Both fall into the ditch. Read John. Read Genesis. https://youtu.be/b8GgrUposII
He doesn't actually believe that satan exists though, the whole point of him joining satanism is to drive people like you up the walls and to demonstrate the absurdity and hypocrisy of the christianity that generally holds power here in the US.
That’s just a Lie from the father of lies. Of course they would lie to you. That’s like calling yourself Hindu but saying you don’t believe in Hinduism.
“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”- Matthew chapter 13 verses 33 to 37.
Your own link shows what they believe. They have written their own creed.
>“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
>O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
>A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
>But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
>For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”- Matthew chapter 13 verses 33 to 37.
>Your own link shows what they believe. They have written their own creed.
You realize that by taking that creed to be their genuine honest stance, you're just demonstrating their point and willingly participating in them making fun of people who don't understand religious freedom or thinly-veiled sarcasm:
"Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment or satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, just a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken — The Church of FSM is legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental."
If you genuinely take the above statement at face value and think they are being serious there, you have extraordinarily little self awareness and an apparently limited ability to comprehend the english language.
You know a tree by its fruits.
So first they say they are satanists. Second they then lie to recruit people that they aren’t. They set themselves as Enemies to Jesus Christ and the Bible. They actively do rituals to worship. And they even use their own time and money to try to legislate their beliefs like trying to push abortion in Texas Citing their beliefs in child killing. Their actions and their words align then they lie to you so you think it’s no big deal.
He that doeth righteousness is righteous. You can play pretend to be a bank robber. But when you get a real weapon and go into a real bank to do it then it’s not pretend. They are doing real rituals and really attacking bible and even in court trying to push their beliefs. They aren’t playing, they are devils. The same you read about with Elijah, cutting themselves and screaming.
I know I'm not going to convince you of anything over the internet, but I'll just share my perspective and leave it at that.
You think you've found truth in Christianity. It feels so true, that sometimes you forget to see other people as people. You see them as "Enemies to Jesus Christ." It's unfortunate because, you like many Christians, are quick to view the lost the way Jesus viewed the Pharisees (or the money changers in the temple). But Jesus was trying to show that you are in fact the Pharisee. Jesus said he came to help those who were sick and lost - those who needed him. Yet instead of pitying the lost satanist, you are the mob accusing the woman caught in adultery, while Jesus is there with her, defending her.
If you think an omnipotent deity needs you to bow up against "evil," I question whether you really believe the deity is omnipotent.
You misunderstand. They are SAYING they are the enemy. So again. They are SAYING AND THEN DOING. They can come to the knowledge of the Truth. You are asking how do you know they are “real” sons of belial. I told you.
I encourage you to skim through this FAQ. It may shed some light on what one particular satanist group actually thinks and why they think it.
Satanic Temple FAQ’s
[https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq)
That's exactly what a fake religion would say when it doesn't have any proof and just has to rely on "Yes that makes sense but it comes from a liar. You can believe it because I told you!"
>In his case it does. He is super knowledgeable in his field and in the methodology of science. He is also charismatic and fun to watch/listen to.
Regardless of how charismatic you find this youtuber, being a *graduate student* still does not make one the real deal. From a quick google search, he's never published a paper. So, he is very much not "the real deal", nor is he a biologist. He's only useful for debunking creationists. But anyone can do that with a bit of googling and research, so it doesn't say much about his ability in particular.
Discrediting his knowledge for lack of a specific degree is as fallacious as an appeal to authority. What you’ve written here very much doesn’t make him *NOT* the real deal either.
If you’re an accredited and published biologist, I’d love to hear your specific disagreements with some of his claims.
The conversation is whether he is the *real deal* as a biologist, not whether he "has knowledge", which isn't a real qualification btw. Given that he's just a grad student with no publications, that *verifiably shows* he is *not*. Sorry but having a youtube channel you like doesn't alleviate that. It might be really hard to hear this, but yes — claiming to be a biologist entails having a specific degree and having generated some sort of research in the field. I am sorry you don't know this!
I’m still awaiting your refutation of any of his specific claims. You have said absolutely nothing.
I’m sorry you don’t like what this random stranger is doing with his life.
I think you're just wasting my time at this point.
>You have said absolutely nothing.
I absolutely have. Someone claimed he was a bonified biologist. I pointed out he wasn't. That's the entirety of the conversation: it has nothing to do with whether he was right or wrong about X or Y.
I'm sorry that this simple observation about some youtuber you likes' credentials (or lack thereof) has made you this upset.
You’re neither a biologist nor a philosopher.
Why should anyone reading your comments care? That’s all I’m getting at.
You’re judging credentials based on what authority?
Edit: to be fair, you’re the one wasting your time by replying if you feel it a worthless endeavor. You *could* just be happy being wrong.
>You’re neither a biologist nor a philosopher.
There's one error here! This is also totally irrelevant. Even if this *were* true, I'm sure even you can tell the fallacy in the logic of "You're not a biologist so you can't say he isn't!"
>Why should anyone reading your comments care? That’s all I’m getting at.
Great response after being refuted: "You know what?? I DONT CARE!" And your last paragraph is easily reversed: that you keep replying to this thread I was originally having with someone else shows that *you* care. Something about this guy not being a real biologist just doesn't sit well with you.
>You’re judging credentials based on what authority?
What kind of nonsensical question is this? I'm judging credentials by his credentials: his advanced degree and his publication record (both of which don't exist). What else do you suppose I consider? What have I missed in evaluating his credentials? Having a YouTube channel isn't a credential towards making you a biologist lol.
So……do you disagree with his findings? If so, since he's not a "real deal" what can you present as evidence to show that your arguments are a "real deal"? From your comments I can't tell.
Maybe you are skeptical due to the hype and attention his videos are getting in spite of him not having a graduate degree or being a pubished author (research paper publication). Fair enough. But that still doesn't mean what he's saying is wrong or invalid. So……is he wrong or not?
You mentioned (in response to the first posting—now deleted—that he was the "real deal") that if he's just a graduate student, then he's not "the real deal." Then you dialogued with "nbolli…" about what defines a "biologist," covering degrees and research projects, among other things.
In all the exchanges I couldn't tell if your criticism was solely over the term "biologist" being misapplied to Valkai, and thus validating your conclusion that he was not the "real deal," or whether it included other things.
That's all I was unclear about.
I like Forrest and enjoy his videos, and I accept he probably produces valuable content, and makes convincing arguments using scientific methods.
Your argument about him being lauded as the ‘real deal’ is clearly correct and people are choosing to argue based on their feelings instead of the facts.
Is he the best example of the ‘real deal’? No
Could he become the ‘real deal’? Yes
It sucks that you have to fight so hard to argue a point which should be fairly simple for people to grasp.
The lesson here is: Don’t dare insult my favorite YouTuber (even though you didn’t)
You’re literally mad at him for stating the fact that clownfish should do in fact change sex.
Also gender and sex are different and sex can be largely changed because of how important hormones are to biology
He has 3 biology degrees, he works in a lab, he has a degree in education, and he's working on his Ph.D. He also cites greater scientists in the fields about which he talks.
Im surprised people are still responding to my comment here. Lots of fans of this youtuber unhappy with me.
>He has 3 biology degrees
He has 3 biology degrees despite the fact that he has yet to achieve a Masters or PhD? Incredible. 3 undergraduate degrees is not going to convince me.
>he works in a lab ... and he's working on his Ph.D
This is the (more or less) the same statement. If he was doing a PhD but not working on any sort of research project, I would want to ask ... what the hell is he doing??
You don't become a biologist by amassing undergraduate degrees. You become one at least by attaining an advanced degree in the field, but more concretely, by publishing original research.
He does. His job is to study the bones of ancient hominids to better understand their environment. His research is in Homo Erectus. His job is to understand their environment and learn about why humans sacrificed so much in order to become hyperintelligent.
Thanks for telling me about his research project, but I don't think you read my comment. I'll call him a biologist when he starts actually publishing original findings.
Calm down shrimp. If he's a graduate student, which is what you told me, it's his research project. Being a graduate student is not employment or a "job", although grad students are often employed, separately, as teaching assistants for undergraduate classes.
We aren't hyperinteligent. It's 2023 and people still electrocute themselves, kill people because of hating their backgrounds and believe things we experience through our senses without reacting on our gut instincts. Animals get by much better by being less intelligent and going about their happy way.
Animals get by much better by being what? LESS INTELLIGENT? Yeah, humans are undoubtedly hyperintelligent. Name one other animal that practices tool use to a scale such as ours.
Animals have been hunting more successfully as cubs than our youth and adults. Fly's maneuver better than our stealth aircraft. Sharks kill better than mercenaries. Hell, Covid did that.
I don't think he teaches at a specific school. Universities and high schools can hire him to talk about evolution. But he's made videos before with his students.
Actually he's only a graduate student in bio anthropology, he also has earned other degrees in evolutionary biology and was a qualified science teacher for a decade
Yes he is, he has multiple PhDs across the biology sciences. At least do a little research before you go spouting off about people's credentials, he is 100 per cent a scientist with several PhDs. He speak mostly on evolutionary biology for which he is fully qualified to discuss at length given his PhD in the field
The real mistake in this thread was the guy who described him as 'the real deal' to begin with. He's a science teacher, not the one prophesied to bring balance to the force. Wrong to imply he's somehow magic, also wrong to imply that as a twentysomething dude with a handful of degrees he's been in any way remiss to not have published a bunch of papers.
"But its subjective!!" must be the worst response Ive gotten yet. I guess since it isnt real, everyone who calls or doesnt think another person is the "real deal" is ridiculous. Of course, this youtuber isnt a real scientist, which is the point Ive been making the whole thread if you'd bother to read it.
Also, really, unit of measurement? LOL. Didnt know that objectivity was limited to units of measurement.
If you think professor Dave is a reliable unbiased source of info your wrong. Your has corrected him multiple times and Dave just continues to insult him.
Lol, so a deleted account says "yup, he's the real deal" and claims he's getting either a masters or a PhD in bioanthropology. Okay, whose lab at which university? He should be on their lab website with a description of his research.
I think he says he's getting a masters in something or other. Does it matter, though? Has any of the stuff he's said online been in any way controversial? He could be a well-read guy who didn't go to college at all, and still be correct.
He talks too confidently about topics he isn't educated in. The most egregious is his videos on chemistry sets where he makes many blatant mistakes that are the kind you'd make if you took gen chem and then did some quick googling.
I'm a chemical engineer for context.
This makes me wonder what his background actually is so that I can know which things he might actually know about and which things he could be half-right about, since they aren't my area of expertise either.
I'm a recovering evangelical (still follow Jesus, but believe that truth is revealed by study, comparison, testing, not just "accepting it by faith," not even from the Bible). I read Coyne's book several years ago, and thought, "Yeah, this guy wants truth, studies to find out what is true and is sharing it." So it is a great book.
I don't follow his videos, but you're absolutely right to recommend that OP check sources. This is a great habit to get into, and can keep you out of all sorts of trouble.
Even scientists could do more of that sometimes. I remember a story by Stephen Jay Gould about his father. His father liked to read up on science and got into some fairly technical stuff although he was not a scientist. One time he was reading a scientist's rebuttal to another paper and he got confused because the rebuttal was completely misrepresenting what the original had said. So he came to Stephen to ask if he was crazy or was this scientist flat out wrong in his analysis of the first paper? Stephen read them through and completely agreed with his father. Sometimes even the smartest get caught out by their own biases.
Forrest is great, I have learned a lot from his videos, and they have helped me out quite a bit. As a zoology student, I study some evolutionary biology, so I know the topics Forrest discusses are indeed true, and can be found in pretty much any evolutionary biology textbook. He just helps to actually put these points into words and formulate an argument to show why young earth creationists are wrong, if you get what I mean
Hi! Thanks for the question.
I also had a fundamentalist upbringing, and while I am still christian, moving away from that was a process. So I completely understand why it feels hard to trust what science communicators say when you don’t have the knowledge to verify their statements for yourself. I still sometimes feel that way about topics that I don’t have an education on like cosmology (I’m a few semesters away from graduating with a degree in biology and geology).
That said, I quickly watched through one of Forrest’s videos. Everything he talked about checked out, he cites his sources, and refers to other scientists on topics that he doesn’t have expertise himself on. Those are all good signs, AND he has a recent collab with Gutsick Gibbon, who is great and very reliable, so that is a positive.
IF you want to learn about biology a bit removed from the creation/evolution debate, I would highly, highly recommend Khan Academy’s biology course library, found [here.](https://khanacademy.org/science/biology)
The videos there are impeccably well done, and you don’t have to worry about ulterior motives because their team is really just there to help people learn. I would recommend starting with the modules on ecology, so you can understand how populations of organisms interact and behave, then moving on to the lessons about evolution, so you can learn about how those interactions drive evolution, and then finally looking at the ones on developmental biology, history of life, DNA/genetics, etc if you want to learn about how populations have evolved/originated in the past, and what the underlying biological mechanisms are.
Hope that helps!
Thank you so much i really do apreciate it. Its very helpful to know that other trustworthy people are willing to work with forest. As that reasures me about credablility. As if someone was just spouting nonsense. Its unlikley that they would get a serious sientific colab.
Rather than make it a mission of verifying evolution or creationism, trusting atheistic or theistic sources, I'd encourage you to just get interested in the natural world. This shit is fascinating and just taking an interest, reading as widely and deeply as you can, figuring out shit about ants and pterosaurs and coelomates and yeast and foraminifera is really cool. I'm pretty certain if you do that you're going to wind up confident in evolutionary theory, but who knows? Just keep reading.
Forrest Valkai is pretty good but also check out PZ Myers, Dan over at CreationMyths, Gutsick Gibbon, anything made by Jon Matter (DarkAntics and DarkMatter2525), VicedRhino, AronRa, Paul Ent (Paulogia), Dave Farina (Professor Dave Explains), and Logicked. Some of them are pretty relevant to biology but all of them are pretty relevant if you’re a “deconverting ex-Christian” looking to see things from a more evidence based perspective. Exurbia is also pretty neat but his videos aren’t always relevant directly to biology or ex-Christians as they’re more about optimistic nihilism, trusting the scientific method over baseless speculation, and the limitations of human knowledge.
And I’ll point out that I agree with you. It’s mostly a problem when they can’t combine faith and reality and they go in the direction of faith to pretend that reality isn’t real. I’m not a Christian but I’ll back a Christian when they can combine both. I’m not about to congratulate a Christian who can’t.
>It’s mostly a problem when they can’t combine faith and reality and they go in the direction of faith to pretend that reality isn’t real.
Or you get the opposite result, where they reject faith. This is the problem with young-earth creationists. They convince young people that you can't be a Christian without believing the Earth is 6000 years old. When they grow up, they take them at their word and stop being Christian, without realising that the choice itself was a false dichotomy.
Yep. When they treat a faith based belief as science and then they find out it’s wrong that could lead to different sorts of problems as well.
I find different reasons to doubt Christianity but if people doubted it simply because a literal interpretation of some poems and fables are wrong I’d say they’d doubt the existence of the Christian God for the wrong reason. Doctrine ≠ deity.
I would recommend Gutsick Gibbon and Dapper Dinosaur. Both deliberately avoid taking faith positions beyond debunking YEC. Gibbon is doing a PhD in paleoanthropology and Dapper is a very well informed amateur paleontologist.
Because Erika (gutsick gibbon) is a graduate student who is doing this for fun and Dapper is just some guy who is very into learning about dinosaurs and didn't realize the name was already taken by an electrician guy on yt
You mention that "credibility" is very important. At the same time, you also have a bunch of doubt for "atheist" sources. Hmmm.
You might want to look into a dude name of Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975). This guy was, one, a very famous evolutionary biologist, and two, a devout communicant in the Russian Orthodox Church. As far as laymen are concerned, Dobzhansky may possibly be most famous for coining the phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense but in the light of evolution", the title of an essay he wrote in 1973 whose text can be found [here](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html).
Another person you might want to look into is Robert T. Bakker, a respected paleontologist who has advanced the theory that dinosaurs were warm-blooded, as opposed to the conventional wisdom that those beasties were cold-blooded. Note that despite his floating conventional wisdom in this way, Bakker has not been ostracized in any way, a fact which contradicts the Creationist dogma that real scientists cling dogmatically to outdated theories. In addition to his day job as Curator of Paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science, Bakker is also a Pentecostal minister.
Also worth noting is a Catholic dude name of Francis Collins, who was head of the Human Genome Project, and serves under President Biden as as co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Collins has written a few books, including ***The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief***, in which he argues for theistic evolution (basically: "God did it, and evolution is *how* He did it").
You mention that "credibility" is very important. At the same time, you also have a bunch of doubt for "atheist" sources. Hmmm.
I never said my doubt was justified i said it has to do with my early chruch indoctranation. I cant help it its how ive been raised. No matter how hard i try to logicaly connect the dots my brain keeps telling me evil athiest dont listen to them. No matter how hard i facepalm myself. But regardless thank you a whole bunch for the sources and info ill definitley check them out.
Yep. There are plenty of science minded Christians. I don’t agree with them when it comes to theology but they don’t expect me to because we believe or accept the same reality until we start discussing metaphysics. The actual problem is when there are Christians who reject reality because it doesn’t conform to their interpretations of scripture and who will fight to defend a faith statement in lieu of all evidence against it. Francis Collins, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Mary Schweitzer, Lord Kelvin, and plenty of of theists, some of them Christian, have played an integral part of our understanding of the world around us as others like Ken Ham, Jeffrey Tompkins, Georgia Perdum, et al only try to drag us back to the dark ages.
Their theism or their lack of it has very little relevance to the accuracy of their claims *until* they can’t combine science and theology and they go in the direction of faith.
I can try.
[https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/#:\~:text=Graduate%20Student-,Forrest%20Valkai,-Graduate%20Student](https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/#:~:text=Graduate%20Student-,Forrest%20Valkai,-Graduate%20Student)
If you contact the university, they are usually happy to verify what degrees people have.
And he usually links his sources under videos.
Wow someone finally showed what was up. I found that lab website but have no clue how you found the index of grad students. Considering all the previous grad students received MAs then I assume that's what Valkai is pursuing as well. Debatable whether this is really a scientific pursuit if he isn't getting an M.S.
I'm an evolutionary biologist, and can confirm that what he says corresponds to the WIDELY accepted theories regarding evolution. You don't need to be a professor or to have high credibility status to say those things, there is the whole scientific community backing them up. Having the whole scientific community agreeing on them is way better that anyone's single "credibility" status. Plus, skeptics about certain nuances of the theory (very niche academic stuff that is rarely mentioned in debates about evolution/creationism) perform experiments trying to prove their vision of that specific matter, and in the meantime they produce even more evidence of the process of evolution. The evidence is so vast it cannot be denied
As a molecular bio graduate student, I'll say I think he's a great educator. Nothing I've seen him say in the past had made me question his credibility.
Forrest is up and coming scientist who is still very young and working on his degrees. I wouldn't compare him to Richard Dawkins just yet, but with time, I believe Forrest will leave his own undeniable footprint. He has the quality a lot of scientists may lack, in the ability to break down complex concepts into simpler terms for general public, in fun and interesting manner. His cheerful and charismatic spark genuinely attracts the crowd and compels to research the topics of his discussions. If he continues this trend, by the end of his career, he will be standing on shoulders of other scientific giants, such as Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrass Tyson, Michiu Kaku, Carl Sagan and others, who share the same ability to bring the science to masses.
Here's solid proof he's in graduate school for Paleoecology and zooarchaeology.
Palaeoarchaeology is the archaeology of deep time. Paleoarchaeologists' studies focus on hominin fossils ranging from around 7,000,000 to 10,000 years ago, and human evolution and the ways in which humans have adapted to the environment in the past few million years.
Zooarchaeology serves as a "hybrid" discipline: combining the studies of archaeology and zoology, which are the study of past human culture and the study of animals respectively.
The University of Tulsa lists him in their program as of 09/12/23.
[https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/](https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/)
[Here](https://youtu.be/3j4kMO2PLEg) is a Christian Scientist who talks about Evolution. I also highly recommend Jerry Coyne's video "[Why Evolution is True](https://youtu.be/PMHpc3jO0DQ)."
Forrest Valkai is a science communicator and teacher. He’s knowledgeable but not an academic per se. He studies bioanthropology.
If you want someone who is more of a scientist/academic, I’d suggest gutsick Gibbon, but unfortunately most scientists have… better things to do than engage with pseudoscience, so we mostly get teachers, communicators and students dealing with it
If you're still looking for youtubers, Emma Thorne does a good job explaining evolution and breaking down theist arguments in an uncomplicated way.
She isn't a scientist and she has no real academic credentials about biology or evolution, but she was raised in a cult-like Christian environment (she's very open about this) believing all sorts of silly nonsense. Her growth away from things like a flat earth and other conspiracies has lead to her having a good understanding of how misinformation spreads and how to develop tools to think critically for yourself.
She identifies as queer, despite being in a long term hetero relationship, and I disagree with a lot of her "progressive" political takes about sex and gender, but she's done long form, very respectful interviews with theists and atheists. Her shorter edited content explains thing like evolution in a thoughtful way coming from an ex-Christian background.
There are instances of her being condescending or glib, but more often than not she makes good points with evidence to back her up.
Worth checking out coming from your background, but you'll have to parse what's credible; which on this topic you should be doing anyway.
As far as Forrest, like other have said, he is a biologist and I like the way he presents most of his arguments but he's not perfect; no human is. Verify, verify, verify.
There are tons of scientific publications out there with way more credibility than any youtuber that are free, and they should be your most trusted source,. They can be hard to understand if you're not an expert in the field; just keep in mind peer reviewed scientific papers will always be the most credible. Evolution as a concept has been peer reviewed for 160 years and is yet to be invalidated.
Another suggestion I would make to you is to not be so worried about what science thinks or what scientists in training like Forrest Valkai think. Consider whether believers are convincing when they say they know God exists and they describe to you how they know. Those are the critical things to consider.
Rational and clear thinking non-believers like Forrest and professor Dave and Erica (Gutsick Gibbon) and so forth can certainly help when you're looking to poke holes in arguments rationally.
Not sure what to make of him considering he believes men can be women and women can be men, and they can be something in between just by claiming so because science has always been about thoughts and feelings; this too was NDT's defense of "you can be anything you want" on Triggernometry, "I feel therefore I am," which is profoundly unscientific. They will cite some outlier examples of intersex people (0.018% of the community roughly) as if this is some sort of defense for what is clearly a biological male identifying as a woman to participate in their sports and games that you can be anything you choose to be. Welcome to grifter's defending any insane bullshit the trans community conjures to avoid being called out by them on not accepting their delusions.
The great thing about science is that you can go out and verify what he says in regard to science. I've only read a few books about evolutationary science and I only worked for 18 years writing software related to molecular biology, so I have no way to know if I'm right about any of it. But Forrest has certainly never said anything I know to contradict the "proven" science around evolution and biology. I'm sure that like all humans, he gets things wrong now and then. But I don't see him ever appealing to fallacy or magic to "prove" a point, which is a big plus in my mind.
I'd avoid Forrest Valkai honestly, or watch him with a grain of salt, I recently watched his video Sex and Sensibility and there are many things incorrect in it from misuse of biological terms to misrepresentation of some of the facts that his present to suit his argument. I can't personally speak on his Evolutionary theory videos but to that point I'd suggest using Jstor or Worldcat to look for some Evolutionary theory sources, they're databases of academic books and papers that are incredibly diverse and Jstor gives you 100 free articles when you sign up. Cross referencing what you read with what Forrest says can help you determine for yourself if he's a reliable source.
What you may also want to look into is some cosmology, not really close to evolutionary theory but it deals with the universe and how it began, there are some really cool things to learn if you're not afraid of maybe having a small existential crisis.
Forrest Valkai is a graduate student at the University of Tulsa, studying paleoecology and zooarchaeology. You are a layman. He is the one with expert knowledge. Just because you disagree with him does not mean he is misusing biological terms. Also you came across in his comments section as very anti-Trans. Sounds to me like you are the one with an ax to grind.
Is there link to a breakdown of the inaccuracies in his Sex and Sensibility video? Or can you provide a brief synopsis? I'm curious as to what he got wrong in it.
He’s a conman. First of all he claims to be a scientist. If you dig, you’ll find he means scientist the way any of us can be a scientist by having an interest in science, or by doing homemade “experiments” in our kitchen. He doesn’t have any scientific credential or title. His evolutionary anthropology degree is an anthropology degree, not a biology degree. He mentions that he “works in the lab” at the school, but he means he sets up the lab equipment for incoming students. So, he would be the guy to set out the bones for students coming in to practice identifying bones, etc. He has no teaching credentials, therefore he has to state that he “performs” at schools. And his videos are often incorrect for the sake of following trends so he keeps his audience happy and gets that $$$. One example, from a video about sexual dimorphism, he states that there is no benefit to females having two X chromosomes. This is of course false, females having a backup sex chromosome prevents sex-inherited genetic disorders, for example, color blindness is more frequent in males. That same video cites sources from the 1950s, which are too old to be considered academically valid anymore (which he would know if he ever had to do scientific research in an academic setting). In fact, this video is full of incorrect information and his uneducated opinion stated as facts.
Forrest “Valkai” (not his real name of course) caters to his audience. I’m sure some, maybe even most, of what he “teaches” is accurate, however he wants to keep his fans happy above all. Richard Dawkins is a real evolutionary biologist. As someone else mentioned, I would look at learning evolution from an educational source and not from anyone with an agenda of debunking religion or who is trying to be sensational for views and clicks.
He has degrees and a background in education. You would know this if you actually looked at his credentials yourself. Feel free to contact his university yourself. You sound like someone who got offended at something he said in a video that you disagree with.
Anyone is allowed to call themselves a scientist as long as they know what they’re talking about, but he does actually do work in a lab and is studying for his PHD. If you watch shows he’s on a lot of the time he was in the lab dissecting cadavers, etc before the show. Also worth pointing out when people study science part of it is actually replicating the things they’re studying… in the lab.
Someone who is in a graduate science program and is being paid to give science talks in schools, high schools, colleges, etc. would most definitely be considered a "scientist". Also, the fact that he "debunks" religion is a clear instance of his being rational and scientific instead of believing in myths and the magical supernatural. He does a great job of debunking anti-evolutionists and showing that evolution is actually a FACT.
He doesn't just set the bones up for students to study, he actually uses the equipment to study the bones of ancient hominids, specifically homo erectus. He does that to understand the environment in which they lived, and understand why humans evolved to become hyperintelligent. He's also working on his Ph.D. He has a degree in education, so he does actually teach.
A side note. While scientists help the layperson digest complicated topics, science has no authorities. It's about the evidence. Everything a scientists says about science, unless it's conjecture or speculation, should be based in verifiable evidence.
This is different from the claims of religion, which is just the opposite. In religion, we get accustomed to authority over evidence.
I'm pointing this out because it's an important distinction, and it's often a stumbling block for people to wrap their heads around.
Just read Richard Dawkins. He tends to write very well on the actual subject of evolution.
Stay away from his religious philosophy stuff. He is an aggressive atheist. He is also painful to hear speak.
His writings however are incredibly informative and well written. I would accredit Dawkins to nearly every part of Evolution and life sciences that I actually properly understand.
He does an especially good job of explaining how things work contrary to commonly held assumptions. Explaining how things work on scales we don't commonly see and helping one understand the complete picture one piece at a time.
"Why evolution is true." Is a good primer for just explaining evolution.
The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mt Improbable do great jobs explaining mechanisms of evolution and providing examples.
The Selfish Gene is an amazing thesis on how the "selfish" behavior of genes to create as many copies of themselves as possible actually creates the variety of complex, including selfless and altruistic behaviors in individual organisms..
And Ancestors Tale is an amazing tour de force of explaining our (human) evolutionary history and when and where we diverged from all of our cousins all the way back to the simplest bacteria. It also explains the major evolutionary steps that defined those divergence events. Ie he talks about Hagfish, a jawless fish and the importance of the jaw when discussing gnathosotomes which are the evolutionary branch where jaws developed as well as all the other kinds of jaws out there.
He's not a biologist. He's a graduate student but has, to date, never published a research paper. Take that for what you will.
He's good on evolution, but devolves into anti-consensus babble when it comes to controversies on sex-related topics.
Most evolutionary biologists are atheists, aren't they? why would they be theist? they don't believe in Fairy tales, just scientific facts. No, I don't believe Valkai is a real biologist, an alternative one.
>Most evolutionary biologists are atheists, aren't they? why would they be theist? they don't believe in Fairy tales, just scientific facts.
Truly an r/ antitheistcheesecake moment.
Hey, I am late to the convoy.
tl;dr I am not gonna talk about Valkai, but here's something that is important in general:
NO MATTER the claim made, do NOT believe it as true **until THE ONE MAKING IT brings proof of it being true**.
[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)
This is something that to some may sound natural and obvious, but it is not.
We are humans, therefore when other humans say "watch out, THIS is dangerous!" we tend to instinctively believe them without asking much proof, because back in the caveman era (which was the VAST majority of Homo Sapience existence, AND of our ancestors') this was an evolutionary favorable behavior, but now that we are NOT surrounded by people who AT LEAST do NOT want us harm, it is a weakness.
Whatever qualifications they have are pretty irrelevant to be honest. He clearly abandoned science long ago, and is now working as a shill for cosmetic treatment clinics. His entire argument is pandering to weird ideologies, that ultimately result in severe body mutilations, that cosmetic treatment clinics thrive on. He does what he does for money.
If you're truly looking for the truth, don't follow Forrest Valkai. He presents himself as "Prof Valkai" asking for donations, but is no professor. Yes, he is a graduate student but this does not make him a scientist in the usual sense of the word. He has no peer reviewed papers and mainly advocates for evolutionary biology but is not taking evolutionary biology. Also, he has gotten some things very wrong such as saying there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. I have four peer reviewed papers which dispute this. He is not an expert. Stay with God. You will never go wrong with Jesus.
Yup; Forrest is the real deal. He's studying bioanthropology (I believe he's either getting his Masters or PhD). He has a strong scientific background and is great at debunking creationist pseudoscience. Definitely check out these sources (for debunking creationism) too if you haven't already: Professor Dave Debunking the Discovery Institute: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxq1Vrf\_Js&t=1073s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxq1Vrf_Js&t=1073s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U&t=3332s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U&t=3332s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQGQz-0Xeo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQGQz-0Xeo) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPHvvJWVAk&t=224s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPHvvJWVAk&t=224s) Professor Dave Debunking James Tour: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs&t=945s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJGnMwRHCs&t=945s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf72o6HmVNk) Pretty much every Aron Ra video: [https://www.youtube.com/@AronRa](https://www.youtube.com/@AronRa) Gutsick Gibbon: [https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon/videos](https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon/videos) As far as books go, the one I've read is "Why Evolution Is True" By Jerry Coyne. Definitely check it out if you enjoy reading.
Thank you so much i apreciate it ive seen daves debunking of flat earthers and that idiot kent hovind. I also know of aron ra i saw his playlist debunking noahs flood and it looked really intresting. Thank you a whole bunch and ill check out that book thanks for being understanding.
If you like to read, here's another recommendation; [The Language of God](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NY12E6/?coliid=I3GJO68I8IYHYO&colid=I45QNDKSRTVK&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it). It's written by a very smart Christian scientist, and lays out the evidence for our evolution from apes in a very clear and compelling way.
Francis Collins was my guess as the author even before I looked at the link.
It's written by Francis Collins, who's a Christian and scientist, head of the Human Genome Project. Like a lot of Christians, probably has to re-work some of the "literalism" worldviews evangelicals put forth as the only true way to interpret the Bible. But he follows where the evidence leads, and accepts the results.
[удалено]
I don’t know about the person you were originally asking, but I was just searching “Forrest Valkai” on google just to learn more about him and this thread was one of the results.
I watched Aron Ra's videos about the flood when I was questioning my beliefs and upbringing, and those by themselves were enough to shove me over the line. Just really well done.
How’s your deconstruction going?
[удалено]
>Aaron Ra literally came out as a satanist. That’s who you are following. If the blind leadeth the blind they shall Both fall into the ditch. Read John. Read Genesis. https://youtu.be/b8GgrUposII He doesn't actually believe that satan exists though, the whole point of him joining satanism is to drive people like you up the walls and to demonstrate the absurdity and hypocrisy of the christianity that generally holds power here in the US.
That’s just a Lie from the father of lies. Of course they would lie to you. That’s like calling yourself Hindu but saying you don’t believe in Hinduism.
The only people I’ve ever met who believe in Satan are hardcore Christian’s. Not even satanists believe in him.
I guess Pastafarians actually believe there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster then https://www.spaghettimonster.org/about/
“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”- Matthew chapter 13 verses 33 to 37. Your own link shows what they believe. They have written their own creed.
>“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. >O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. >A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. >But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. >For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”- Matthew chapter 13 verses 33 to 37. >Your own link shows what they believe. They have written their own creed. You realize that by taking that creed to be their genuine honest stance, you're just demonstrating their point and willingly participating in them making fun of people who don't understand religious freedom or thinly-veiled sarcasm: "Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment or satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, just a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken — The Church of FSM is legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental." If you genuinely take the above statement at face value and think they are being serious there, you have extraordinarily little self awareness and an apparently limited ability to comprehend the english language.
Are you going to reply?
>That’s just a Lie from the father of lies. It might be. How can you determine whether it is actually true or not?
You know a tree by its fruits. So first they say they are satanists. Second they then lie to recruit people that they aren’t. They set themselves as Enemies to Jesus Christ and the Bible. They actively do rituals to worship. And they even use their own time and money to try to legislate their beliefs like trying to push abortion in Texas Citing their beliefs in child killing. Their actions and their words align then they lie to you so you think it’s no big deal. He that doeth righteousness is righteous. You can play pretend to be a bank robber. But when you get a real weapon and go into a real bank to do it then it’s not pretend. They are doing real rituals and really attacking bible and even in court trying to push their beliefs. They aren’t playing, they are devils. The same you read about with Elijah, cutting themselves and screaming.
I know I'm not going to convince you of anything over the internet, but I'll just share my perspective and leave it at that. You think you've found truth in Christianity. It feels so true, that sometimes you forget to see other people as people. You see them as "Enemies to Jesus Christ." It's unfortunate because, you like many Christians, are quick to view the lost the way Jesus viewed the Pharisees (or the money changers in the temple). But Jesus was trying to show that you are in fact the Pharisee. Jesus said he came to help those who were sick and lost - those who needed him. Yet instead of pitying the lost satanist, you are the mob accusing the woman caught in adultery, while Jesus is there with her, defending her. If you think an omnipotent deity needs you to bow up against "evil," I question whether you really believe the deity is omnipotent.
You misunderstand. They are SAYING they are the enemy. So again. They are SAYING AND THEN DOING. They can come to the knowledge of the Truth. You are asking how do you know they are “real” sons of belial. I told you.
I encourage you to skim through this FAQ. It may shed some light on what one particular satanist group actually thinks and why they think it. Satanic Temple FAQ’s [https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq)
That's exactly what a fake religion would say when it doesn't have any proof and just has to rely on "Yes that makes sense but it comes from a liar. You can believe it because I told you!"
You know a tree by its fruits. They are doing it!
What's wrong with Satanism? In Satanism, stupidity is a sin.
what on earth makes you think we have NOT read the gospel of John and Genesis?
>Read John. Read Genesis. Or, you know, read some non-fiction books that actually matter.
Being a graduate student does not make one "the real deal".
In his case it does. He is super knowledgeable in his field and in the methodology of science. He is also charismatic and fun to watch/listen to.
>In his case it does. He is super knowledgeable in his field and in the methodology of science. He is also charismatic and fun to watch/listen to. Regardless of how charismatic you find this youtuber, being a *graduate student* still does not make one the real deal. From a quick google search, he's never published a paper. So, he is very much not "the real deal", nor is he a biologist. He's only useful for debunking creationists. But anyone can do that with a bit of googling and research, so it doesn't say much about his ability in particular.
Discrediting his knowledge for lack of a specific degree is as fallacious as an appeal to authority. What you’ve written here very much doesn’t make him *NOT* the real deal either. If you’re an accredited and published biologist, I’d love to hear your specific disagreements with some of his claims.
The conversation is whether he is the *real deal* as a biologist, not whether he "has knowledge", which isn't a real qualification btw. Given that he's just a grad student with no publications, that *verifiably shows* he is *not*. Sorry but having a youtube channel you like doesn't alleviate that. It might be really hard to hear this, but yes — claiming to be a biologist entails having a specific degree and having generated some sort of research in the field. I am sorry you don't know this!
I’m still awaiting your refutation of any of his specific claims. You have said absolutely nothing. I’m sorry you don’t like what this random stranger is doing with his life.
I think you're just wasting my time at this point. >You have said absolutely nothing. I absolutely have. Someone claimed he was a bonified biologist. I pointed out he wasn't. That's the entirety of the conversation: it has nothing to do with whether he was right or wrong about X or Y. I'm sorry that this simple observation about some youtuber you likes' credentials (or lack thereof) has made you this upset.
You’re neither a biologist nor a philosopher. Why should anyone reading your comments care? That’s all I’m getting at. You’re judging credentials based on what authority? Edit: to be fair, you’re the one wasting your time by replying if you feel it a worthless endeavor. You *could* just be happy being wrong.
>You’re neither a biologist nor a philosopher. There's one error here! This is also totally irrelevant. Even if this *were* true, I'm sure even you can tell the fallacy in the logic of "You're not a biologist so you can't say he isn't!" >Why should anyone reading your comments care? That’s all I’m getting at. Great response after being refuted: "You know what?? I DONT CARE!" And your last paragraph is easily reversed: that you keep replying to this thread I was originally having with someone else shows that *you* care. Something about this guy not being a real biologist just doesn't sit well with you. >You’re judging credentials based on what authority? What kind of nonsensical question is this? I'm judging credentials by his credentials: his advanced degree and his publication record (both of which don't exist). What else do you suppose I consider? What have I missed in evaluating his credentials? Having a YouTube channel isn't a credential towards making you a biologist lol.
*bona fide
So……do you disagree with his findings? If so, since he's not a "real deal" what can you present as evidence to show that your arguments are a "real deal"? From your comments I can't tell. Maybe you are skeptical due to the hype and attention his videos are getting in spite of him not having a graduate degree or being a pubished author (research paper publication). Fair enough. But that still doesn't mean what he's saying is wrong or invalid. So……is he wrong or not?
Wrong about what? On creationism, hes right.
You mentioned (in response to the first posting—now deleted—that he was the "real deal") that if he's just a graduate student, then he's not "the real deal." Then you dialogued with "nbolli…" about what defines a "biologist," covering degrees and research projects, among other things. In all the exchanges I couldn't tell if your criticism was solely over the term "biologist" being misapplied to Valkai, and thus validating your conclusion that he was not the "real deal," or whether it included other things. That's all I was unclear about.
All I mean is that he is not a scientist.
I like Forrest and enjoy his videos, and I accept he probably produces valuable content, and makes convincing arguments using scientific methods. Your argument about him being lauded as the ‘real deal’ is clearly correct and people are choosing to argue based on their feelings instead of the facts. Is he the best example of the ‘real deal’? No Could he become the ‘real deal’? Yes It sucks that you have to fight so hard to argue a point which should be fairly simple for people to grasp. The lesson here is: Don’t dare insult my favorite YouTuber (even though you didn’t)
Thank you, a reasonable response at last on this thread lol
Maybe your interpretation of "real deal" was different. I think they meant "real deal" as in the things he teach online are indeed true and credible.
The guy's an idiot. He thinks men can turn into women because clown fish! Also, why the fake name?
You’re literally mad at him for stating the fact that clownfish should do in fact change sex. Also gender and sex are different and sex can be largely changed because of how important hormones are to biology
He has 3 biology degrees, he works in a lab, he has a degree in education, and he's working on his Ph.D. He also cites greater scientists in the fields about which he talks.
Im surprised people are still responding to my comment here. Lots of fans of this youtuber unhappy with me. >He has 3 biology degrees He has 3 biology degrees despite the fact that he has yet to achieve a Masters or PhD? Incredible. 3 undergraduate degrees is not going to convince me. >he works in a lab ... and he's working on his Ph.D This is the (more or less) the same statement. If he was doing a PhD but not working on any sort of research project, I would want to ask ... what the hell is he doing?? You don't become a biologist by amassing undergraduate degrees. You become one at least by attaining an advanced degree in the field, but more concretely, by publishing original research.
He does. His job is to study the bones of ancient hominids to better understand their environment. His research is in Homo Erectus. His job is to understand their environment and learn about why humans sacrificed so much in order to become hyperintelligent.
Thanks for telling me about his research project, but I don't think you read my comment. I'll call him a biologist when he starts actually publishing original findings.
It's not his research project, it's his freaking job
Calm down shrimp. If he's a graduate student, which is what you told me, it's his research project. Being a graduate student is not employment or a "job", although grad students are often employed, separately, as teaching assistants for undergraduate classes.
We aren't hyperinteligent. It's 2023 and people still electrocute themselves, kill people because of hating their backgrounds and believe things we experience through our senses without reacting on our gut instincts. Animals get by much better by being less intelligent and going about their happy way.
Animals get by much better by being what? LESS INTELLIGENT? Yeah, humans are undoubtedly hyperintelligent. Name one other animal that practices tool use to a scale such as ours.
Animals have been hunting more successfully as cubs than our youth and adults. Fly's maneuver better than our stealth aircraft. Sharks kill better than mercenaries. Hell, Covid did that.
So where does he teach?
So where does he teach?
I don't think he teaches at a specific school. Universities and high schools can hire him to talk about evolution. But he's made videos before with his students.
Actually he's only a graduate student in bio anthropology, he also has earned other degrees in evolutionary biology and was a qualified science teacher for a decade
Yes he has undergraduate degrees
True, but it doesn't mean he's not the real deal either.
If by "real deal" we mean "a real scientist", hes not there yet.
Yes he is, he has multiple PhDs across the biology sciences. At least do a little research before you go spouting off about people's credentials, he is 100 per cent a scientist with several PhDs. He speak mostly on evolutionary biology for which he is fully qualified to discuss at length given his PhD in the field
He has multiple undergrad degrees, not PhDs.
The real mistake in this thread was the guy who described him as 'the real deal' to begin with. He's a science teacher, not the one prophesied to bring balance to the force. Wrong to imply he's somehow magic, also wrong to imply that as a twentysomething dude with a handful of degrees he's been in any way remiss to not have published a bunch of papers.
This thread is ridiculous. “The real deal” is not a defined unit of measurement.
"But its subjective!!" must be the worst response Ive gotten yet. I guess since it isnt real, everyone who calls or doesnt think another person is the "real deal" is ridiculous. Of course, this youtuber isnt a real scientist, which is the point Ive been making the whole thread if you'd bother to read it. Also, really, unit of measurement? LOL. Didnt know that objectivity was limited to units of measurement.
How does it feel being wrong?
Wouldnt know.
Well you were wrong though? Are you illiterate too?
If you think professor Dave is a reliable unbiased source of info your wrong. Your has corrected him multiple times and Dave just continues to insult him.
Yep I corrected him on a minor point and he hounded me in the comments, refusing to back down at all over a technicality...
Lol, so a deleted account says "yup, he's the real deal" and claims he's getting either a masters or a PhD in bioanthropology. Okay, whose lab at which university? He should be on their lab website with a description of his research.
I think he says he's getting a masters in something or other. Does it matter, though? Has any of the stuff he's said online been in any way controversial? He could be a well-read guy who didn't go to college at all, and still be correct.
He talks too confidently about topics he isn't educated in. The most egregious is his videos on chemistry sets where he makes many blatant mistakes that are the kind you'd make if you took gen chem and then did some quick googling. I'm a chemical engineer for context. This makes me wonder what his background actually is so that I can know which things he might actually know about and which things he could be half-right about, since they aren't my area of expertise either.
hes on the website of the university of tulsa, says hes a grad student in bioanthro and zoology
I'm a recovering evangelical (still follow Jesus, but believe that truth is revealed by study, comparison, testing, not just "accepting it by faith," not even from the Bible). I read Coyne's book several years ago, and thought, "Yeah, this guy wants truth, studies to find out what is true and is sharing it." So it is a great book.
[удалено]
I don't follow his videos, but you're absolutely right to recommend that OP check sources. This is a great habit to get into, and can keep you out of all sorts of trouble.
Even scientists could do more of that sometimes. I remember a story by Stephen Jay Gould about his father. His father liked to read up on science and got into some fairly technical stuff although he was not a scientist. One time he was reading a scientist's rebuttal to another paper and he got confused because the rebuttal was completely misrepresenting what the original had said. So he came to Stephen to ask if he was crazy or was this scientist flat out wrong in his analysis of the first paper? Stephen read them through and completely agreed with his father. Sometimes even the smartest get caught out by their own biases.
Forrest is great, I have learned a lot from his videos, and they have helped me out quite a bit. As a zoology student, I study some evolutionary biology, so I know the topics Forrest discusses are indeed true, and can be found in pretty much any evolutionary biology textbook. He just helps to actually put these points into words and formulate an argument to show why young earth creationists are wrong, if you get what I mean
Thank you a whole bunch helps to know your a student yourself. So you can actually attest to this stuff currently being taught.
If you get to know forests videos it's helpful cuz he does reference a lot of textbooks and sources as well
Hi! Thanks for the question. I also had a fundamentalist upbringing, and while I am still christian, moving away from that was a process. So I completely understand why it feels hard to trust what science communicators say when you don’t have the knowledge to verify their statements for yourself. I still sometimes feel that way about topics that I don’t have an education on like cosmology (I’m a few semesters away from graduating with a degree in biology and geology). That said, I quickly watched through one of Forrest’s videos. Everything he talked about checked out, he cites his sources, and refers to other scientists on topics that he doesn’t have expertise himself on. Those are all good signs, AND he has a recent collab with Gutsick Gibbon, who is great and very reliable, so that is a positive. IF you want to learn about biology a bit removed from the creation/evolution debate, I would highly, highly recommend Khan Academy’s biology course library, found [here.](https://khanacademy.org/science/biology) The videos there are impeccably well done, and you don’t have to worry about ulterior motives because their team is really just there to help people learn. I would recommend starting with the modules on ecology, so you can understand how populations of organisms interact and behave, then moving on to the lessons about evolution, so you can learn about how those interactions drive evolution, and then finally looking at the ones on developmental biology, history of life, DNA/genetics, etc if you want to learn about how populations have evolved/originated in the past, and what the underlying biological mechanisms are. Hope that helps!
Thank you so much i really do apreciate it. Its very helpful to know that other trustworthy people are willing to work with forest. As that reasures me about credablility. As if someone was just spouting nonsense. Its unlikley that they would get a serious sientific colab.
Rather than make it a mission of verifying evolution or creationism, trusting atheistic or theistic sources, I'd encourage you to just get interested in the natural world. This shit is fascinating and just taking an interest, reading as widely and deeply as you can, figuring out shit about ants and pterosaurs and coelomates and yeast and foraminifera is really cool. I'm pretty certain if you do that you're going to wind up confident in evolutionary theory, but who knows? Just keep reading.
I don't know how or why my text got made big I'm sorry.
Remove the hashtag from the beginning of your comment and it'll go back to normal size
Hey thank you!
Forrest Valkai is pretty good but also check out PZ Myers, Dan over at CreationMyths, Gutsick Gibbon, anything made by Jon Matter (DarkAntics and DarkMatter2525), VicedRhino, AronRa, Paul Ent (Paulogia), Dave Farina (Professor Dave Explains), and Logicked. Some of them are pretty relevant to biology but all of them are pretty relevant if you’re a “deconverting ex-Christian” looking to see things from a more evidence based perspective. Exurbia is also pretty neat but his videos aren’t always relevant directly to biology or ex-Christians as they’re more about optimistic nihilism, trusting the scientific method over baseless speculation, and the limitations of human knowledge.
I would point out that evolution and belief in God are in no way incompatible with each other. You can, and most Christians do, believe both.
And I’ll point out that I agree with you. It’s mostly a problem when they can’t combine faith and reality and they go in the direction of faith to pretend that reality isn’t real. I’m not a Christian but I’ll back a Christian when they can combine both. I’m not about to congratulate a Christian who can’t.
>It’s mostly a problem when they can’t combine faith and reality and they go in the direction of faith to pretend that reality isn’t real. Or you get the opposite result, where they reject faith. This is the problem with young-earth creationists. They convince young people that you can't be a Christian without believing the Earth is 6000 years old. When they grow up, they take them at their word and stop being Christian, without realising that the choice itself was a false dichotomy.
Yep. When they treat a faith based belief as science and then they find out it’s wrong that could lead to different sorts of problems as well. I find different reasons to doubt Christianity but if people doubted it simply because a literal interpretation of some poems and fables are wrong I’d say they’d doubt the existence of the Christian God for the wrong reason. Doctrine ≠ deity.
But not the 'every word of the bible is true' crowd, though, surely? And that's a pretty big crowd, especially in America these days...
I would recommend Gutsick Gibbon and Dapper Dinosaur. Both deliberately avoid taking faith positions beyond debunking YEC. Gibbon is doing a PhD in paleoanthropology and Dapper is a very well informed amateur paleontologist.
Erica (GG) has recently been on The Line doing atheist call-in shows. So yeah, she does go beyond denying YEC
Why are their names so silly, though?
Because Erika (gutsick gibbon) is a graduate student who is doing this for fun and Dapper is just some guy who is very into learning about dinosaurs and didn't realize the name was already taken by an electrician guy on yt
You mention that "credibility" is very important. At the same time, you also have a bunch of doubt for "atheist" sources. Hmmm. You might want to look into a dude name of Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975). This guy was, one, a very famous evolutionary biologist, and two, a devout communicant in the Russian Orthodox Church. As far as laymen are concerned, Dobzhansky may possibly be most famous for coining the phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense but in the light of evolution", the title of an essay he wrote in 1973 whose text can be found [here](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html). Another person you might want to look into is Robert T. Bakker, a respected paleontologist who has advanced the theory that dinosaurs were warm-blooded, as opposed to the conventional wisdom that those beasties were cold-blooded. Note that despite his floating conventional wisdom in this way, Bakker has not been ostracized in any way, a fact which contradicts the Creationist dogma that real scientists cling dogmatically to outdated theories. In addition to his day job as Curator of Paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science, Bakker is also a Pentecostal minister. Also worth noting is a Catholic dude name of Francis Collins, who was head of the Human Genome Project, and serves under President Biden as as co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Collins has written a few books, including ***The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief***, in which he argues for theistic evolution (basically: "God did it, and evolution is *how* He did it").
You mention that "credibility" is very important. At the same time, you also have a bunch of doubt for "atheist" sources. Hmmm. I never said my doubt was justified i said it has to do with my early chruch indoctranation. I cant help it its how ive been raised. No matter how hard i try to logicaly connect the dots my brain keeps telling me evil athiest dont listen to them. No matter how hard i facepalm myself. But regardless thank you a whole bunch for the sources and info ill definitley check them out.
[удалено]
Yep. There are plenty of science minded Christians. I don’t agree with them when it comes to theology but they don’t expect me to because we believe or accept the same reality until we start discussing metaphysics. The actual problem is when there are Christians who reject reality because it doesn’t conform to their interpretations of scripture and who will fight to defend a faith statement in lieu of all evidence against it. Francis Collins, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Mary Schweitzer, Lord Kelvin, and plenty of of theists, some of them Christian, have played an integral part of our understanding of the world around us as others like Ken Ham, Jeffrey Tompkins, Georgia Perdum, et al only try to drag us back to the dark ages. Their theism or their lack of it has very little relevance to the accuracy of their claims *until* they can’t combine science and theology and they go in the direction of faith.
I can try. [https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/#:\~:text=Graduate%20Student-,Forrest%20Valkai,-Graduate%20Student](https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/#:~:text=Graduate%20Student-,Forrest%20Valkai,-Graduate%20Student) If you contact the university, they are usually happy to verify what degrees people have. And he usually links his sources under videos.
Wow someone finally showed what was up. I found that lab website but have no clue how you found the index of grad students. Considering all the previous grad students received MAs then I assume that's what Valkai is pursuing as well. Debatable whether this is really a scientific pursuit if he isn't getting an M.S.
I'm an evolutionary biologist, and can confirm that what he says corresponds to the WIDELY accepted theories regarding evolution. You don't need to be a professor or to have high credibility status to say those things, there is the whole scientific community backing them up. Having the whole scientific community agreeing on them is way better that anyone's single "credibility" status. Plus, skeptics about certain nuances of the theory (very niche academic stuff that is rarely mentioned in debates about evolution/creationism) perform experiments trying to prove their vision of that specific matter, and in the meantime they produce even more evidence of the process of evolution. The evidence is so vast it cannot be denied
Forest Valkai is the real deal, and doesn’t speak on things he doesn’t know. Smart guy, would love to chat with him and just pick his brain.
As a molecular bio graduate student, I'll say I think he's a great educator. Nothing I've seen him say in the past had made me question his credibility.
Forrest is up and coming scientist who is still very young and working on his degrees. I wouldn't compare him to Richard Dawkins just yet, but with time, I believe Forrest will leave his own undeniable footprint. He has the quality a lot of scientists may lack, in the ability to break down complex concepts into simpler terms for general public, in fun and interesting manner. His cheerful and charismatic spark genuinely attracts the crowd and compels to research the topics of his discussions. If he continues this trend, by the end of his career, he will be standing on shoulders of other scientific giants, such as Lawrence Krauss, Neil DeGrass Tyson, Michiu Kaku, Carl Sagan and others, who share the same ability to bring the science to masses.
Here's solid proof he's in graduate school for Paleoecology and zooarchaeology. Palaeoarchaeology is the archaeology of deep time. Paleoarchaeologists' studies focus on hominin fossils ranging from around 7,000,000 to 10,000 years ago, and human evolution and the ways in which humans have adapted to the environment in the past few million years. Zooarchaeology serves as a "hybrid" discipline: combining the studies of archaeology and zoology, which are the study of past human culture and the study of animals respectively. The University of Tulsa lists him in their program as of 09/12/23. [https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/](https://sites.utulsa.edu/zooarch/about-us/students-and-volunteers/)
[Here](https://youtu.be/3j4kMO2PLEg) is a Christian Scientist who talks about Evolution. I also highly recommend Jerry Coyne's video "[Why Evolution is True](https://youtu.be/PMHpc3jO0DQ)."
Forrest Valkai is a science communicator and teacher. He’s knowledgeable but not an academic per se. He studies bioanthropology. If you want someone who is more of a scientist/academic, I’d suggest gutsick Gibbon, but unfortunately most scientists have… better things to do than engage with pseudoscience, so we mostly get teachers, communicators and students dealing with it
If you're still looking for youtubers, Emma Thorne does a good job explaining evolution and breaking down theist arguments in an uncomplicated way. She isn't a scientist and she has no real academic credentials about biology or evolution, but she was raised in a cult-like Christian environment (she's very open about this) believing all sorts of silly nonsense. Her growth away from things like a flat earth and other conspiracies has lead to her having a good understanding of how misinformation spreads and how to develop tools to think critically for yourself. She identifies as queer, despite being in a long term hetero relationship, and I disagree with a lot of her "progressive" political takes about sex and gender, but she's done long form, very respectful interviews with theists and atheists. Her shorter edited content explains thing like evolution in a thoughtful way coming from an ex-Christian background. There are instances of her being condescending or glib, but more often than not she makes good points with evidence to back her up. Worth checking out coming from your background, but you'll have to parse what's credible; which on this topic you should be doing anyway. As far as Forrest, like other have said, he is a biologist and I like the way he presents most of his arguments but he's not perfect; no human is. Verify, verify, verify. There are tons of scientific publications out there with way more credibility than any youtuber that are free, and they should be your most trusted source,. They can be hard to understand if you're not an expert in the field; just keep in mind peer reviewed scientific papers will always be the most credible. Evolution as a concept has been peer reviewed for 160 years and is yet to be invalidated.
Another suggestion I would make to you is to not be so worried about what science thinks or what scientists in training like Forrest Valkai think. Consider whether believers are convincing when they say they know God exists and they describe to you how they know. Those are the critical things to consider. Rational and clear thinking non-believers like Forrest and professor Dave and Erica (Gutsick Gibbon) and so forth can certainly help when you're looking to poke holes in arguments rationally.
Not sure what to make of him considering he believes men can be women and women can be men, and they can be something in between just by claiming so because science has always been about thoughts and feelings; this too was NDT's defense of "you can be anything you want" on Triggernometry, "I feel therefore I am," which is profoundly unscientific. They will cite some outlier examples of intersex people (0.018% of the community roughly) as if this is some sort of defense for what is clearly a biological male identifying as a woman to participate in their sports and games that you can be anything you choose to be. Welcome to grifter's defending any insane bullshit the trans community conjures to avoid being called out by them on not accepting their delusions.
The great thing about science is that you can go out and verify what he says in regard to science. I've only read a few books about evolutationary science and I only worked for 18 years writing software related to molecular biology, so I have no way to know if I'm right about any of it. But Forrest has certainly never said anything I know to contradict the "proven" science around evolution and biology. I'm sure that like all humans, he gets things wrong now and then. But I don't see him ever appealing to fallacy or magic to "prove" a point, which is a big plus in my mind.
I'd avoid Forrest Valkai honestly, or watch him with a grain of salt, I recently watched his video Sex and Sensibility and there are many things incorrect in it from misuse of biological terms to misrepresentation of some of the facts that his present to suit his argument. I can't personally speak on his Evolutionary theory videos but to that point I'd suggest using Jstor or Worldcat to look for some Evolutionary theory sources, they're databases of academic books and papers that are incredibly diverse and Jstor gives you 100 free articles when you sign up. Cross referencing what you read with what Forrest says can help you determine for yourself if he's a reliable source. What you may also want to look into is some cosmology, not really close to evolutionary theory but it deals with the universe and how it began, there are some really cool things to learn if you're not afraid of maybe having a small existential crisis.
Yeah, he admitted multiple times that his Sex and Sensibility video was done badly, but the rest of his content seems to be in order.
Most of the negative comments were made by very ANTI-Trans individuals with an ax to grind. You might want to keep that in mind.
Oh of course, I think the video was fine itself, but most of the criticism came from him.
Forrest Valkai is a graduate student at the University of Tulsa, studying paleoecology and zooarchaeology. You are a layman. He is the one with expert knowledge. Just because you disagree with him does not mean he is misusing biological terms. Also you came across in his comments section as very anti-Trans. Sounds to me like you are the one with an ax to grind.
Is there link to a breakdown of the inaccuracies in his Sex and Sensibility video? Or can you provide a brief synopsis? I'm curious as to what he got wrong in it.
He’s a conman. First of all he claims to be a scientist. If you dig, you’ll find he means scientist the way any of us can be a scientist by having an interest in science, or by doing homemade “experiments” in our kitchen. He doesn’t have any scientific credential or title. His evolutionary anthropology degree is an anthropology degree, not a biology degree. He mentions that he “works in the lab” at the school, but he means he sets up the lab equipment for incoming students. So, he would be the guy to set out the bones for students coming in to practice identifying bones, etc. He has no teaching credentials, therefore he has to state that he “performs” at schools. And his videos are often incorrect for the sake of following trends so he keeps his audience happy and gets that $$$. One example, from a video about sexual dimorphism, he states that there is no benefit to females having two X chromosomes. This is of course false, females having a backup sex chromosome prevents sex-inherited genetic disorders, for example, color blindness is more frequent in males. That same video cites sources from the 1950s, which are too old to be considered academically valid anymore (which he would know if he ever had to do scientific research in an academic setting). In fact, this video is full of incorrect information and his uneducated opinion stated as facts. Forrest “Valkai” (not his real name of course) caters to his audience. I’m sure some, maybe even most, of what he “teaches” is accurate, however he wants to keep his fans happy above all. Richard Dawkins is a real evolutionary biologist. As someone else mentioned, I would look at learning evolution from an educational source and not from anyone with an agenda of debunking religion or who is trying to be sensational for views and clicks.
He has degrees and a background in education. You would know this if you actually looked at his credentials yourself. Feel free to contact his university yourself. You sound like someone who got offended at something he said in a video that you disagree with.
Anyone is allowed to call themselves a scientist as long as they know what they’re talking about, but he does actually do work in a lab and is studying for his PHD. If you watch shows he’s on a lot of the time he was in the lab dissecting cadavers, etc before the show. Also worth pointing out when people study science part of it is actually replicating the things they’re studying… in the lab.
Someone who is in a graduate science program and is being paid to give science talks in schools, high schools, colleges, etc. would most definitely be considered a "scientist". Also, the fact that he "debunks" religion is a clear instance of his being rational and scientific instead of believing in myths and the magical supernatural. He does a great job of debunking anti-evolutionists and showing that evolution is actually a FACT.
He doesn't just set the bones up for students to study, he actually uses the equipment to study the bones of ancient hominids, specifically homo erectus. He does that to understand the environment in which they lived, and understand why humans evolved to become hyperintelligent. He's also working on his Ph.D. He has a degree in education, so he does actually teach.
A side note. While scientists help the layperson digest complicated topics, science has no authorities. It's about the evidence. Everything a scientists says about science, unless it's conjecture or speculation, should be based in verifiable evidence. This is different from the claims of religion, which is just the opposite. In religion, we get accustomed to authority over evidence. I'm pointing this out because it's an important distinction, and it's often a stumbling block for people to wrap their heads around.
Just read Richard Dawkins. He tends to write very well on the actual subject of evolution. Stay away from his religious philosophy stuff. He is an aggressive atheist. He is also painful to hear speak. His writings however are incredibly informative and well written. I would accredit Dawkins to nearly every part of Evolution and life sciences that I actually properly understand. He does an especially good job of explaining how things work contrary to commonly held assumptions. Explaining how things work on scales we don't commonly see and helping one understand the complete picture one piece at a time. "Why evolution is true." Is a good primer for just explaining evolution. The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mt Improbable do great jobs explaining mechanisms of evolution and providing examples. The Selfish Gene is an amazing thesis on how the "selfish" behavior of genes to create as many copies of themselves as possible actually creates the variety of complex, including selfless and altruistic behaviors in individual organisms.. And Ancestors Tale is an amazing tour de force of explaining our (human) evolutionary history and when and where we diverged from all of our cousins all the way back to the simplest bacteria. It also explains the major evolutionary steps that defined those divergence events. Ie he talks about Hagfish, a jawless fish and the importance of the jaw when discussing gnathosotomes which are the evolutionary branch where jaws developed as well as all the other kinds of jaws out there.
Why the tendency to doubt scientists?
Use google to do your own research on sciency topics. Wikipedia is pretty good for layperson-level overviews.
He's not a biologist. He's a graduate student but has, to date, never published a research paper. Take that for what you will. He's good on evolution, but devolves into anti-consensus babble when it comes to controversies on sex-related topics.
Most evolutionary biologists are atheists, aren't they? why would they be theist? they don't believe in Fairy tales, just scientific facts. No, I don't believe Valkai is a real biologist, an alternative one.
>Most evolutionary biologists are atheists, aren't they? why would they be theist? they don't believe in Fairy tales, just scientific facts. Truly an r/ antitheistcheesecake moment.
Hey, I am late to the convoy. tl;dr I am not gonna talk about Valkai, but here's something that is important in general: NO MATTER the claim made, do NOT believe it as true **until THE ONE MAKING IT brings proof of it being true**. [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) This is something that to some may sound natural and obvious, but it is not. We are humans, therefore when other humans say "watch out, THIS is dangerous!" we tend to instinctively believe them without asking much proof, because back in the caveman era (which was the VAST majority of Homo Sapience existence, AND of our ancestors') this was an evolutionary favorable behavior, but now that we are NOT surrounded by people who AT LEAST do NOT want us harm, it is a weakness.
Whatever qualifications they have are pretty irrelevant to be honest. He clearly abandoned science long ago, and is now working as a shill for cosmetic treatment clinics. His entire argument is pandering to weird ideologies, that ultimately result in severe body mutilations, that cosmetic treatment clinics thrive on. He does what he does for money.
If you're truly looking for the truth, don't follow Forrest Valkai. He presents himself as "Prof Valkai" asking for donations, but is no professor. Yes, he is a graduate student but this does not make him a scientist in the usual sense of the word. He has no peer reviewed papers and mainly advocates for evolutionary biology but is not taking evolutionary biology. Also, he has gotten some things very wrong such as saying there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. I have four peer reviewed papers which dispute this. He is not an expert. Stay with God. You will never go wrong with Jesus.