Video

The most devout creation apologist I know is an aqueous geologist who worked in that field for nearly 2 decades before moving to ministry and he was a creationist the whole time.

@@OctagonalSquare He proved my point by giving up and going to the ministry...

Well, that only works when one thinks that the "Seven Days of Creation" is a literal 7 periods of 24 hours. When one considers that those "7 days" might be an allegory for 7 different stages... "Let there be a Big Bang" might be an option for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being who said the words, let it happen, and then went back to sleep, already knowing we were going to be idiots.

Be specific, what lie?

@@beestoe993 Lies: the world is 6000 years old, God created all the animal kinds simultaneously, the world suffered a global flood that wiped out most life, pretty much all of Young Earth Creationism, and any other ideology that claims to use the Bible as a scientific model to interpret the world. They all rely on lying about what the evidence is, lying about what scientists say, lying about how science works. Lying is lying, even if people believing in the lie would make them more likely to accept beliefs that you think are morally good.

They are thinking. . That is good. When you speak from memory that what they told us in school. Darwinism. . Nova of our sun did happen 7000 yrs ago. That's from studdies for 50 years. Thinking. . Not being told a story and believing it.

@@nickstreeservice4454 grow up, pls

Using radiometric dating in a convo about the bible is completely pointless. The half-life of C14 is around 50,000 years, which is WAY longer of a timeline than a 7 day creation theory. The big lamp in the sky is the sun. Trees take months to grow but is older than day 6?? what are you even talking about??

@@rudeasparagus5012 The Literalists believe that their all powerful God, having created time, along with every damned thing else, is somehow limited to the same 24 hours in a day as we are. "So that meanth the trees were created on day six, already months old." The mental gymnastics are incredible. The Creation Scientists are in disagreement on who made the Dinosaur fossils. Some think God did it to make us wonder, others think Da Debbil did it to confuse us. They also disagree strongly on whether the Earth is 4,000, 6,000. or 10,000 years old.

No, the flood was a massive tectonic catastrophe. The layers deposited were a result of several things happening simultaneously. Primarily mantle flow, volcanic upheavals, continents crashing and massive tsunamis.

@@beestoe993 AGREED! ALL the above!!!

And that is why dogs roll on the floor. To scratch their itches. Me? I have a wife to scratch my itches and when she is not around, I have a stick. Although I guess I could roll on the floor. *** However, you obviously do not understand evolution. Species do not evolve to become perfect. They evolve to adapt to their surroundings. An example is wildebeest and zebras co-existing side by side. The zebras eat the tough grasses that grow taller than the more tender grasses that the wildebeest eat. With the grasses, tough and tender, eaten, new grasses may grow. A win for the grass, zebras, and wildebeest. Evolution did not cause zebras, wildebeests or grass to become perfect. But each has learned to make the best of their environment. If zebras and wildebeest competed for the same food they could not co-exist side by side. If the grass did not have taller, tough shoots, it would be eaten down to the roots. By having their seeds on the tough shoots, the zebras spread the seeds in their feces.

I like that lol Here's one even better. Evolution were true then why didn't we all evolve to have wings, seeing as flight would have been advantageous to nearly any creature? Even humans.

@alanmcentee9457 nonsense. You have confused evolution with adaptation. Adaptation and evolution are two entirely different things. If evolution was a thing, everything would continue to evolve. It's okay with me if you want to be wrong.

because it started as a species of single celled organism, one member of that species absorbed an cyanobacteria that became a chloroplast and hence the offspring of that cell had chloroplasts (because the bacteria multiply aswell) that would eventually develop into plants and algae and the members of the species that didnt absorb a cyanobacteria didnt have a chloroplast so they became animalia

Where are those examples of a divergence? There’s never been any evidence to suggest that. You’re hypothesizing. Which is fine, just don’t claim it as fact.

@@meliciousgoremay for pretty much every multicellular organism there's evidence of it coming from previous species through a transitional species, same case with bacteria, eukaryotes and archaea

@@meliciousgoremay Genetics, in very large part, we can perfectly trace the genetic drift of species over time in such a way that perfectly lines up with our observed understanding of speciation by the fossil record. The fossil record is fragmentary, every single one we find beat a one in a million shot by random chance and circumstance to be in the proper condition to fossilize. Its not a coincidence these things line up perfectly, especially since we can observe genetic drift happen in real time and the same rules still apply. When we look at Eukaryota, the domain/clade that contains all multicellular life and various complex single cellular organisms, we can use genetics to trace about 20-ish different seperate clades, 3 of which are the ones youre likely familiar with (plants, animals, fungi). Well as it turns out, within all Eukaryotes, Plants are just about as distant within this clade as they possibly could be from Animals. Plants are part of the Viridiplantae clade, which consists of the plants we know and are familiar with like trees and ferns, in the Streptophyta clade, as well as Green Algae and very simple basal single-celled organisms that are about as simple as you can get while having a complex organelle like a Chloroplast. Interestingly enough, Viridiplantae actually DOESNT contain all the things we call "Plants" either, because all of those are part of multiple other entirely different clades, like Giant Kelp and Brown Seaweed being part of the SAR Supergroup. How do we know all this? Genetics and Fossil record. Brown Algae like Kelps are actually among the oldest forms of eukaryotic organisms period, and show that even the absorption of a smaller bacteria wasnt a one-off event, since we can trace the genetic drift and history of organelles like chloroplasts and mitochondria and it shows that these werent some single event they diverged from. Anaerobic and Chemosynthetic metabolism are much simple than aerobic or photosynthetic pathways, so much so that the only organisms that ever developed them had to be hyper specialized. Eukaryotes are much more complex, and developing those complex chemical pathways on top of the other countless complexities was too distant for the gradual changes of evolution. So that begs the question: how the hell do plants and animals accomplish photosynthesis and respiration, and the answer is they just absorbed a less complex bacterium that already was specialized to do that and got it to do ot for them. And this isnt some pipe dream process that needed some special attention to make happen, because weve seen it happen, completely randomly, in other microorganisms, in real time. We literally observed a special third occurence of this incredibly important process happen in the EXACT theorized way because as it turns out, every single piece of genetic evidence we have for how these processes happened turned out to be correct. Honestly, theres an absolutely absurd amount of information im glossing over here, but i think the point you need to understand is that this stuff isnt a bunch of guys in lab coats and jackets in some university just pulling facts out of their ass or whatever, there is an absolutely ludicrous amount of literature across dozens of different fields that are so beyond complicated that it would most likely look like complete gibberish to the average person. The unfortunate reality is that science is complicated, too complicated. What you were taught in school was wrong, not because theyre trying to trick or lie to you, but because unfortunately the truth is so infinitely more complicated that we have to oversimplify everything to the point of being effectively incorrect due to the sheer amount of information lost, just to make it even remotely possible for the uninitiated to understand even basic concepts, which even those we often have to teach wrong just so people can be better prepared for when that more complex information is finally introduced to them. Youre failure to understand isnt "the science being wrong" or a "lack of evidence", its that the theres too much information you are missing to properly understand. This isnt an insult against yours or anyone elses intelligence, its just an unfortunate reality that the knowledge we have has reached a point of being so hyper specialized that ones needs to essentially dedicated their entire life to a fragmentary sliver of it to even get an understanding of just that portion of it, and theres no way around that reality. There are no "jack of all trades" scientists because it is quite literally impossible for those to exist, there is simply too much knowledge for any single person to really be an expert at more than one portion of it. And you may say "well you never said WHY genetics is proof or prooved that genetics means anything or explained why those latin words matter" or a million other things, because the simple reality is that most of those explanations cant be made in simple terms. Honestly, all things considered, i doubt you, or the vast majority of people on the entire planet, have went out of their way to learn enough about these topics to even ask a question that doesnt already hasnt already been answered by scientists a long time ago. I doubt youll even bother to read any of this, i cant blame you if you chose to interpret all of this as me trying to "one up" you or "win" the argument or whatever, the simple reality is im just trying to help someone understand that things are not always as simple and easy to pick apart or understand as you might think at a glance. The ocean doesnt seem deep if youre just looking at the beach, but that doesnt mean once you start heading further away from shore it isn't going to be miles deep. Frankly, i myself dont even feel qualified to properly answer some of these questions, theres a lot of information i forget or cant always remember off the top of my head, but that doesnt mean the explanations simply dont exist because you havent seen them.

@@meliciousgoremay Explain why hypothesizing a divergence is wrong but blind acceptance that some invisible dude in the sky snapped his fingers is just spiffy? No one know how the divergence between plants, animals, fungi, molds, bacteria, and other life forms happened; no one was there. However, we may reasonably judge from the evidence. Is that proof? No. But there is more evidence of that then there is for Genesis.

yeah these folks have no clue what they're talking about. there is plenty of evidence suggesting a step-by-step evolution process, and the best part is that human technological advancement is a step-by-step process too, which these people deny, even though it is FACT

Not really. The building of a gearbox is not evolution; itʼs assembly. It isnʼt functional until itʼs completed. For evolution to work, every step has to be functional. Even a single-cell photosythetic organism needs the chlorophyll (which is not a simple molecule) plus a complex inter-operational system to detect & gather light and to coordinate the process of producing food.

@@Leslie_Crich not the building of a gearbox but compare the gearboxes from today to those 20 years ago and those from 40 years ago etc and you'll see that every generation has improved on the shortcomings of those former generations

@@Leslie_Crich I don't mean literal evolution. I mean that the gearbox as we know it went over generations of iterations for hundreds of years. It started with moment (arm * force), and even before the actual physics/math was figured out seesaws existed to move heavier things with short arms with less force and longer arms and. This concept eventually got used in pulleys, gears and eventually gearboxes. (There where thousands of iterations innetween these. This process of transfering energy this was evolved as our understanding of it evolved. This is NOT proof of biological evolution. I mean to demonstrate that the analogy is false. Complex technology evolved through iteration. I am not a biologist, but, there has been proof of transfering energy into other forms of energy biologically for thousands of years and with increasingly complicated ways. Yes the first cell to fully be capable of photosynthesis took a while, but his argument that it cannot be broken down is false, you can, it exists in a one cell form and it is WAY simpler than a full plant.

@@krokso519so how did those plants exist if they weren’t already functional enough to grow and create by photosynthesis???