Evolution Vs Religion | EXPLAINED IN UNDER 6 MINUTES
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- So what do you think?
www.churchfinder.com/
Timecodes
0:00 - Intro
0:09 - RNA World Hypothesis
2:07 - Panspermia Theory (Aliens)
2:30 - Mutations
3:36 - Fossil Records
4:47 - Evolution Vs Adaptation
5:30 - Conclusion
#christianityexplained #evolution #christianity #religion #god #jesus
Difference between religion and science: In religion you believe. In science you understand.
Consciousness is a type of science we don't understand. Science is an attempt to understand. Some of the most popular scientific theories in the past have been debunked and I'm sure in a hundred years we were wrong about a lot of stuff. Nothing is known for certain.
@@BiblicalBear-3 Well, science never claimed to have the answers to everything, just that the main purpose is to understand and learn as much about the world as possible.
@@BiblicalBear-3we don’t fully understand it but we understand a lot about it. Enough to know it’s not magic
@@LangkowskiTrue, science it self does ant calm it has isle the an sir's,But ate theist calm science has isle the an sir's.
Example - Theirs know physical proof of a creator, Their four,it does ant exist. This is implying science has isle the an sir's.
Science is limited buy hue men intelligence,So every thing above hue man under stand is called sue purr natural. Ate theist don't bee leave inn the sue purr natural bee cause day are limited buy hue men's intelligence.
Beavers build dams,but are limited buy their intelligence,So day bee leave hue man dams are a part of nature. Does the science of beavers prove hue men's did ant create a hue men dam? Or flooding debris inn the river create Ted the dams? Beaver science or the sue purr natural two beavers?
Please don't abuse Maths like this
Well there's five minutes of precious life I will never get back
Sorry bro
How to put as many lies and misconceptions about evolution in one video.
You do know that modern bacteria were not the first form of life? So it is pretty dishonest to count the number of enzymes needed for a modern bacteria, and base calculations about the origin of life on that. Why don't you take a more reasonable estimate: the number of enzymes to build a strand of RNA, which you admit could have been the first form of life.
On top of that, to claim that only one of the possible enzyme combinations results in life, is extremely dishonest. If want to be honest, you should determine how many of those combinations result in some form of life, how likely each of those are to happen in the environment of early earth, and how abundantly they could happen in parallel on earth.
_"the odds of a beneficial mutation is one in 10000"_ - so, a quick calculation. Mutations in simple cells like bacteria happen about once a day. Given an estimated 5*10^30 of bacteria on earth, that means that there are 5*10^26 beneficial mutations per day in bacteria on Earth. That is 5.7*10^21 beneficial mutations in bacteria PER SECOND. You dramatically underestimate the law of big numbers.
Noah didn't live over 500 years. He probably did not even exist. Don't believe the stories in your ancient fairytale book.
_"there is big misconception about how old these fossils really are"_ - no there is not. The age of fossils is not determined by how fast they fossilise. And, by the way, covering them with a layer of Calciumoxide is not fossilisation.
Whether two life forms are different species is determined after the fact. There just need to be sufficient differences between them. And the border between different species is pretty arbitrary. The species are human-made labels helping to classify things. Nature does not really care about them.
_"The evidence points towards that we were designed by a creator"_ - You have presented exactly zero evidence for that. You have only presented ideas that you claim speak against evolution, nothing that speaks for a creator. That is the typical God-of-the-gaps fallacy. You don't understand evolution, and therefore, it must have been a god. You see zero evidence for that god, but you cannot think of anything else, so it must be god.
That is the same reason why ancient people thought lighting, floods, plagues, etc, were acts of God. We are not ancient people anymore, and we know better.
You should know better.
Vv vv to
We've discovered bacteria millions of years old and its still not as complex as the simplest bacteria we have. I could've added in the estimate to creating other forms of life but then I'd have to calculate the odds of just having 1 singular extra chemical that just ruins the whole formation.
@@BiblicalBear-3 funny thing, life is estimated to be several billions years old, so the bacteria must have been way simpler than the ones millions years old.
@@BiblicalBear-3 _"We've discovered bacteria millions of years old and its still not as complex as the simplest bacteria we have"_ - Indeed, it is likely that the bacteria that lived millions of years ago where not as complex as the current bacteria. That would indeed support evolution.
You cannot say that with certainty, though, because there is not much more left of those bacteria than an imprint of them on the soil.
It is interesting to see that you don't actually respond to any of my other comments.
@@renedekker9806Amazing comment, the math he did in this video was embarrassingly bad. The idea that any strand of RNA needs 350 enzymes to form is asinine.
The simplest living bacteria was not created in a soup of random stirring. It itself took time to evolve and build from other life forming processes.
It's like looking at a small building, and saying "they must have stired the bricks and metal and glass forever to make this!" - knowing that is not how it was constructed.
I agree but the only problem is that is the leading theory. That is what most of the scientists believe. Look up primordial soup.
Ok but have you ever seen a building form in billions of years without a creatot
@@BiblicalBear-3 You clearly don't understand how abiogenesis works.
@@dougfoster445 Stop comparing man-made objects to biological systems.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 If you've been paying attention it wasnt my comparison. It was literally pointing out the flaw in the original comment. Pay attention better! And on that note, what authority are you to tell someone not to make a comparison. The concept of philosophy is to think and ponder. Stop trying to shut down creative thought.
Just on the first argument concerning the RNA world hypothesis, i find it quite dishonest to assume that
1. the first organism resembles the simplest we have now.
(If superior techniques/biological pathways have evolved since then very primitive life forms may not have any chance to compete in any niche, so it is not a fair comparison.)
2. The RNA hypothesis is strongly supported by the fact that RNA itself can be an enzyme, in fact some of our most vital cellular mechanism do still employ RNA segments. (This could very much increase the abundance of biological precurser moieties arround RNA hotspots if they facilitate duch formation)
3. I do not know on what numbers you base the "mathematical argument" but as far as I know we do not habe a good estimate for e.g. concentrations of biomolecules especially if considering tidal pool environments instead of a global average.
So generally there are definite gaps in our knowledge which you can fix with faith, but it is not wise to oversimplify the counterargument as it just makes it seem like you don't want to aknowledge that people have indeed considered the possible issues of the RNA world hypothesis.
There's gaps in knowledge in everything. You don't know anything for certain.
@@BiblicalBear-3 I do not know, what you exactly mean by this? Knowing everything is certainly an impossibility if you want to argue metaphysically, just based on quantum mechanical uncertainties.
However as a whole we do unterstand many processes in much greater detail than previously, so I would argue that the gaps in our collective knowledge have been decreasing for a long time.
It is good practise to formulate anything without implying absolute certainty, especially in the scientific lenguage, which is why error bars and confidency intervals are a thing. This however, is not equivalent to saying nobody does really know anything.
You could say we don't know if their will a sunrise tomorrow for certain, but despite extensive unterstanding of orbital mechanics and good tracking of any objects in our celestial vicinity, we habe next to no plausible cause for it not to occur.
Eventually it is just a very semantic difference which is normally not considered in everyday lenguage.
yeah your 10 trillion years thing is kinda whack since you assume the process is only happening in a single instance. Fossil records are undoubtedly the best chronological presentation of evolution as it happened over time, Its literally a photograph carved in stone. A horseshoe crab doesnt look like it changed because it didnt change, it fit an ecological niche where it didnt need to adapt any further, that happens alot. Theres also the phenomenon of convergent evolution where things evolve to look similar to each other because that fulfills an ecological niche.
All your video shows is how you failed to understand each of the 5 arguments that you've presented.
That's delusion and narcissistic lvl 9999999999999999999.
Delusion for saying we don't know evolution is for certain true?
You may make 1000 comments like that, but everyone knows what you tried to do with this. Evolution is a given by the way, the only thing still up for debate is the origin of life itself, and when you claim panspermia to be the leading theory you're lying through you teeth so badly I think the man upstairs recoiled. Unrelated, if you believe in intelligent design, why do human bodies suck so bad in such easy to fix places? For example, why do we have an appendix, why do we have a tail bone? Weird to consider when you disregard evolution
@@agatofelin722 I literally said RNA world hypothesis is the leading theory.
@@BiblicalBear-3 Well, truth only comes the moment of dying anyways, tsk. I'm not saying don't believe, I'm just saying that's your own POV of something, don't overlook.
@@BiblicalBear-3evolution is certainly true. We actually observe it happening. We don’t know all the details of abiogenesis but what we do know is all based on natural forces. (Have you read the recent studies detailing how organic chemistry happens on dust particles in space and in comets?) what we have never found is a divine cause for anything, ever. These facts would seem to make materialism the logical default until some evidence for an act of divine creation is found.
Got any.
I think you are guided by your faith and beliefs and you provide such examples in your video. You mention that scientists have calculated/discovered this or that, but only if it agrees with your beliefs. Believers treat science selectively and reject it when it says something different than their faith. If you want to analyze things scientifically, you have to let go of beliefs or faith in reaching objective conclusions. Otherwise it is wishful thinking. Additionally, you assume that human life has a purpose, and what if it doesn't?
Atheism goes the same way. They accept certain science that agrees with their own narrative and reject others. If life has no purpose then it has no purpose, If you wan't to live your life that way you are able to do so freely. I personally think there is a purpose.
@@BiblicalBear-3 No, atheism do not go the same way. But even if, are you trying to say that if someone deny reality so you also can? That is stupid excuse. And just to be clear, I am not an atheist nor theist. About what you believe, well it doesn't matter what you believe(yes, it matters for you) because it does not reflect reality like examples in your video, be honest with reality because it is as it is and that's it because it is 100% fact. if faith was 100% fact you will don't have to believe. So ask yourself what what have greater priority.
@@jezus22 I am being honest with reality. I believe that evolution isn't real and I explained why in the video. Everything in there is easy to look up to verify yourself. The truth is atheists love to prove god isn't real just as much as religous people like to prove the opposite. Everyone is biased towards their own views. If you think I'm wrong I'd love to hear why.
@@BiblicalBear-3 _"I personally think there is a purpose."_ - I personally think there is a purpose as well. What does that has to do with whether evolution is correct or not?
@@BiblicalBear-3L creationism. You got bodied
Ok, at first I was just disapointed with the week and unbased arguments, then I looked to the name of the channel and the hashtags and it just turned into a comedy video
Are you trolling? What the hell is this?
Why is pseudoscience on my front page?
Evolution is not a theory on "the origin of life". The word you are looking for is abiogenesis.
At one point in the video you ask how it could be the case that if 75% of mutations are detrimental in nature can species then evolve.
This is the entire point of having 2 people produce the offspring...
Let’s calculate the odds of forming a diamond. Every atom in the lattice needs to be Carbon. There are 94 naturally occurring elements, so that’s a 1/94 chance of being correct per atom in any material, where all atoms need to be carbon to be a diamond. A 1 carat diamond has about 10^22 atoms. The odds of a 1/94 event occurring 10^22 times in a row in the same material is impossibly low, therefore diamonds cannot occur naturally.
The error here is obvious, diamonds occur through a natural process that is not analogous to mixing up random elements in a vat, making this calculation useless. RNA formation is believed to be from a natural process that is also not analogous to mixing random amino acids together in a vat.
Things happening naturally without human intervention does not mean they happen chaotically, the laws of physics give order to the natural world.
are we like supposed to forget about dinos? it's adaptation not evolution? dinos are as much of a proof of evolution as much one can be.
brown bears are not the same spiecies as polar and panda bears
The universe is a toroid, it’s non deterministic, and yes by chance random molecules can come together and make life.
i love jow you completly ignored my comment absolutely distroying your entire video
I’d say it was the most educated comment. Regardless you admitted yourself it all came from one side of the argument. If you research only one side you can convince yourself of anything. There are some errors in it but it doesn’t even matter since you wouldn’t listen to what I have to say. Regardless, keep up the research man.
@@BiblicalBear-3that's a good argument I guess, biased research is indeed a thing, however I'm objectively on the truth side of the ordeal, as there is plenty evidence of what I said is true, if you cannot understand science on a more technical level and have to get your knowledge from some watered down, incorrect or miselading source, or even pseudoscience journals that is simply not my problem
your faith offers you easy answers so your mind can give up my faith in science is the true study of God as it is the fundamental consciousness and love underlaying all realities evolution is verifiable and you guys make me sad at your legitimate denial of God yall been played your entire lives :(
I’m not a Christian exactly, but I have seen and known “God” and the “Spirit”. And that force is in all things. You don’t have to discredit biology, evolution, natural history etc, because it IS all of those things! That’s what’s so amazing about it! Instead of trying to make reality fit into a preconceived idea about how it all came to be, maybe try to observe the way things actually are and accept that this force - what you understand to be God - is responsible for it. Suddenly everything makes a lot more sense. Give it a try my friend. Sending love to you ❤. I hope you have a blessed day!
i need your take on the pyramids, 9/11 and the moon landing
best comment so far
@@blackingone2254 that's what i'm saying lol.
This is extremely dishonest and manipulative, even if that was not your intention
Alright I've watched plety of Professor's Dave videos against creationists to be able to take debunk this video, let me address point you made.
RNA World Hypotesis:
It's funny to me how you googled the most accepted abiogenesis theory, which is supported by tons and tons of research and evidence, and just lie about what the theory is about and just throw some numbers you got from another creationists and go "nuh-uh, the MATH doesn't work" as I'd you have any clue of what the math is doing. You are taking probability theory's onto something completely unrelated, and doing it with false numbers, and to top it all of, incorrectly.
RNA is catalyzed by enzymes, which are themselves polimarized by proteins and these are formed by amino acids. Sometime in the 50's an experiment called the Miller-Urey experiment, a contraption simulating the early earth's properties was set up, and literal WEEKS later they found the amino acids necessary for the RNA formation. Now all of this took only weeks, now give it half a billion years. Yeah. Not such a small possibility now, is it.
Panspermia Theory:
Now life coming from another planet has no evidence of such thing happening, while extraterrestrial life "planting" the first ever cell and just leaving it there is simply reaching.
Mutation:
Now you are just lying, there has never been any scientist that have claimed mutations in RNA molecules to be deleterious, matter of fact these "bad" type of mutations rarely happens. Mutations happen all the time, each mutation adding MORE information, not "deleting" it, so again, now you are simply lying.
Scientists believe that having a beneficial mutation only happens 1 in 10,000 times? And who exactly are this scientists? I've never heard of them.
Alexey Kondrashov's appearance was uncalled for, and the "this could also be an argument for the bible" simply has no sense. How can that possibly mean the bible is right? There is no actual record of Noah or the big flood actually happening or existing, you are pulling this out of you ass simply for your followers to go "yes, take that dumb evolutionists".
Fossil Records:
Horseshoe crab. Of course. The reason this species has not evolved is simply because they are so adapted and in such little pressure of evolution of the environment they live in (because this hasn't changed either) there is simply no need for it. Of course mutations ate still happening, but again, this process is not only very very sow, but also not necessary for this species in specific.
Adaptation IS evolution, period. Even if the big flood had happened, you would still believe in evolution, and you actually just admitted it in your own video.
Fossilisation indeed takes around 10,000 years to happen, what happens there has very specific conditions. Your just lying and manipulating information, yet again.
Radiocarbon dating is very damn accurate, but only so up to around 20,000 to 60,000 years, so you are lying, again.
Freshwater mussels have indeed obtained wrongful daring data, but that's about the only problem with radiocarbon daring. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air.
Evolution Vs Adaptation:
Again, the same thing. The reason dogs don't just randomly create another species is because dogs are advanced life organisms, ameiba and other unicelular cells are not, this is why a single cell is able to have created all life, and a dog, of course, couldn't. This argument is dumb. Please educate yourself a little more.
Oh you encourage everyone to make their own research? How about you take your own advice and stop cherry picking articles made by other dumb people, trying to prove your beliefs right by using "science" as proof. This is disrespectful.
As a final comment I'd like to say to all pseudoscientists out there, actual science wasn't made to hide the truth, or something like that. This is simply the results that all of the scientists have gotten from all the research, all of the experiments and questions they have made. Science doesn't exists to prove god doesn't exists, or deceive the public into thinking something that isnt factual. It is simply the search for the truth. Period. If you can't understand it or if it goes against your persoanal beliefs, uh oh, too bad, deal with it. It is not our problem.
Farewell my friend.
He's ignorant he was already being debunked so he stoped answearing
I thought this was an ironic title lol. What a bozo
we can easily rule out religion but i wonder what the true answer is
People hold on to science but science simply can’t explain the Big Bang
but it can. The singularity started expanding, even expanding space time making the universe less dense and cooler. This lead to the separation of the fundamental forces, such as strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism, to separate from eachother, leading to the "smoothen" of the universe giving it a more uniform expansion and distribution, this lead to the formation of basic particles like quarks, which formed protons, then through nucleosynthesis more elements got formed, leading the way to the recombination era in which the universe was cool enough to allow for electrons to form a cloud around protons making the first neutral hydrogen atoms. Over millions of years large clouds of gas collapsed into each other to form stars and eventually entire galaxies.
Life could've been as simple as a bunch of rna in a bubble. The simplest lifeform we have now isnt the same as it was back then. Also, you act as if only specific sequences have a unique function when in reality many sequences can have the same function.
Also your argument of "life Impossible because big number" is just dumb and unworthy of mentioning because of the above
Pov: the fact that evolution its not a theory and we are part of the family of the great apes we share with them 99% of DNA
I’m sorry but I’m flagging this as misinformation lol
Saying the theory of evolution could be fake is misinformation?
@@BiblicalBear-3yes
There are more theories than just those two, ever heard of metabolism first? And the enzymes and proteins that guide the formation of RNA and DNA, also cause it to be more accurate, proto-cells would likely not have [as much] of these, thus resulting in a higher mutation chance.
My brother, bacteria arrived on earth on asteroids
You do realise adaptation isn't even a thing? Lamarckian genetics has been rejected entirely for well over 100 years which even then falls orders of magnitude below the limit he proposed for significant change to happen. In addition, the idea that because the likelihood that life would form on a planet is generally excepted very small, if it didn't happen - we wouldn't be here anyway; so from an atheistic perspective, we wouldn't be here if it didn't happen making any incorrect calculation you make completely irrelevant anyway.
If you are going to point out some of the real unsolved mysteries in abiogenesis and evolution (see James Tour, for example), please at least learn the difference between "deletions" and "deleterious" -- you are combining and conflating the two. If for no other reason, you lost me at that.
I'm gonna say that this argument was the most put together I've heard from any Christian non-evolutionist. You really got my mind going.
This is quite possibly the worst video on this entire hell site
Why thank you :)
Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. 1 Corinthians 2 :14
What a load of old cobblers! Edeledeledel 22:43 8th May 2024
Another Pick me girl? Girl go read the Bible and see what its saing about u, If u are good with the idea of womdn cant lead and need to submissive to their husbands (men) then you're not ok
You lost me at thinking Noah's Ark was real, sorry.