Number one, cosmic evolution. This is the origin of time, space and matter. Meet Golden Crocodoc nominee Chris Johnson. He's going to talk about evolution being a religion, but first he's going to give us six different definitions of evolution. Second definition of evolution would be stellar evolution. The third definition would be chemical evolution. The fourth definition would be the concern of the origin of life. The fifth one would be macro evolution. This is one kind of animal changing into a completely different kind of animal. Hang on, these definitions have a familiar ring. Why? Here they are from a presentation given years ago by someone who is not Chris Johnson, so who came up with them. Maybe you're talking about macro evolution. That's where an animal changes into a different kind of animal. That's right. None other than the logger mice to himself can hoven. But sorry Chris, I interrupted. You were saying something about macro evolution. Again, dogs produce dogs. You might get a big dog or a little dog. It might have straight hair, it might have curly hair, but it's a dog every time. Nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. You may get a big dog or a little dog, I understand, but you're going to get a dog. Now the dog in the wolf had cut in the coyote. It may have had a common ancestor. It could be. The dog, the wolf, and the coyote had a common ancestor. And so on and so on. It's almost as if hoven escaped from jail, got a bad haircut and went right back to preaching. Unfortunately, Johnson has none of the charisma of the real hoven. At least the real hoven had the imagination to make up his own lies and deliver them with the genealogy and confidence of an aluminum-siding salesman. Johnson is just boring, repetitive, and predictable. All the observable science, scientific evidence, has shown us that dogs produce dogs. This is exactly what the Bible says. They bring forth after they're kind. No argument there. So let's move on to something that supports the title of your video. Now if you want to believe something non-dog produced a dog, then you're going outside the realm of science. No one believes something non-dog produces a dog. Didn't you ever study evolution before embarking on this hoven cut and paste rant? In fact, the theory of evolution is only viable if an animal of one species gives birth to an animal of the same species. If dogs started giving birth to rats, the whole theory would collapse. Again, dogs produce dogs every time. We know! We go by the observable evidence. We see they bring forth after their kind just like the Bible says. To go beyond that and say that a dog came from something non-dog goes beyond the observation. The science shows that dogs produce dogs that's what we've always seen. Shut up! You're on certain observations. And no experimentation that have ever shown us that a dog can produce a non-dog. If you want to believe you, there's something non-dog produced a dog. Say dog again. I dare you. I double dare you. Dogs produce dogs. That's what we've always seen. You want drugs? Johnson may be confused because of something that is observable and forms a key part of the theory of evolution. When a dog gives birth to another dog, the offspring is not an exact copy of either parent. It's different in very subtle ways. It could be heria, it could be frightened of the colour red. It could be more aggressive towards camels, but it's still a dog. The same goes for a salamander. This enceitina doesn't give birth to a rat or an albatross. It gives birth to another enceitina, with, of course, slight genetic differences. Over successive generations, these differences accumulate. If some enceitina move into new territory, their descendants are eventually going to look very different to the distant cousins they left behind. But as the two Hoveans would say, it's still an enceitina. If you like, it's the same kind, because both species can interbreed successfully. And that's exactly what happened to the enceitina salamander, which biologists think originated in and around the state of Oregon. As the species expanded southwards to the west of California's central valley, it progressively changed. But despite the differences, each type of enceitina could still interbreed with its neighbours. The Hoveans would call this a classic example of microevolution. Animals change, but they're still the same kind. They can still interbreed. See, if they can bring forth, they're the same kind. Simple definition. Can they bring forth? The same thing happened with the enceitina that spread southwards to the east of the central valley. As they adapted to their new environments, they changed, but each type of enceitina could still interbreed with other enceitina from neighbouring groups. Then the two lines came together at the southern end of the central valley, and that's where the creationist theory comes unstuck. Because by now each line has evolved so much and becomes so different to the ancestral enceitina left behind in Oregon, that the new neighbours can't interbreed. So according to the Biblical definition, they must be different kinds. Let's just see what a mess this makes of Johnson's logic as we follow the evolutionary trail of these salamanders southwards. Same kind, same kind, same kind. Whoops! If they're all the same kind, why can't these two interbreed? That would make them a different kind. But we know this one can interbreed with this one, so they must be the same kind. Let's follow the trail back again. Same kind, same kind, same kind, same kind, same kind, DOLT! We'll hit the same problem. These ones at the end can't be the same kind, because they can't interbreed. So back we go, same kind, same kind, same kind. If this has creation is going around in frustrating circles, it's because this phenomenon is called ring species. Even if creationists believe these salamanders were magically spoken into existence by a deity out of nothing, that still doesn't explain why each neighbouring group can interbreed and these neighbouring groups can't. Are they the same kind or not? And it's not restricted to salamanders in California. A bird called the Greenish Warbler has evolved as it moves around the Tibetan Plateau and the gradual morphological changes between the groups can be seen. Again, each group can interbreed with the neighbouring groups, so they all must be the same kind. But where the two evolutionary trails meet and overlap in Siberia, the Greenish Warbler's here can't interbreed. So how can they all be the same kind? Confusing, huh? Actually, it's only creationists who are confused by ring species, which is why you won't find any explanation of them in creation wiki and no answer to them in answers in Genesis. Biologists aren't confused because the existence of ring species is perfectly compatible with evolution. In fact, we'd expect to get ring species according to the theory of evolution. This is because in the real world, evolution doesn't produce neat little boxes dividing organisms into kinds. Evolution is a gradation, a slow change from one type of organism into another, and that's why a dog can never give birth to a non-dog. It would be like a man coming out of a lump of clay or a woman coming out of a rib. I'm sure Johnson would agree with me that these are just as impossible as a non-dog coming out of a dog. Or maybe not. Having gone on at length about the impossibility of a supernatural event like a dog producing a non-dog, Johnson then turns around and professes his belief in the supernatural. Huh? I can prove, I can provide evidence of the Bible being true and logical evidence of a creator, but I cannot prove it scientifically because science only deals with the physical and material world. It can't test supernatural things. Oh, well, allow me to retort. Of course, science can test supernatural things. When this supernatural phenomenon was tested by science, it was found to be caused by the refraction of light in water droplets. It was once thought there was a supernatural flood that covered the earth. That was also tested by science and found to be wrong. And the supernatural belief that we all appeared out of nothing 6,000 years ago has been tested and falsified many times over. Johnson himself shows that he believes stars are supernatural because there's no possible way they could have formed on their own. How does he reach that conclusion? Well, once again, he copies a hovened argument. But even the idea of, you know, they say, well, gas is, you know, formed together to make a star. The idea of that is unscientific and unilogical because a boil's gas law would prevent that from happening. Boils gas laws, if you have a bunch of dust out in space like that and they would condense to form something, the closer together they get, the more energy, the heat is increased. Kinetic energy drives them back out again. Boils gas law would prevent that from happening. So they don't have any explanations on how a star can even form. Now, of course, Johnson isn't eligible for the coveted golden crocodile by going on and on and on and on and on about how dogs produce dogs. That's like proclaiming that an ice cream factory produces ice cream. It's hardly a breach of the ninth commandment. But there's so much nonsense in his videos. The choice is just too enormous, so I've plumped for this one. Johnson's assertion that stars can't possibly form because of boil's law. Generally speaking, it's true to say that these gases should be driven apart. But for reasons more complex than boil's law, which only applies to ideal gases. So how can they possibly come together and stay together? If as Johnson states these balls of gas shouldn't exist, and yet they do, then some invisible force must be counteracting the force that's pulling them apart. Johnson can't think of any force capable of doing this, so he assumes that this must be the work of the supernatural, i.e. God. The question is, has science discovered some force in the universe that attracts matter together? Hmm. Okay, this is so easy for anyone watching this video that I won't waste your time by explaining it. I'll just play the response I played when a similarly dumb assertion was made about how God must have made all the planets round. Sign us out, Chris. Okay, boil's gas law would prevent that from happening, so they don't have any explanations on how it started even form. I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Yes sir. I can't listen. Just so you know.