Evolution and Creationism as Science and Myth
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 11. 2018
- (3:29 - Eugenie C. Scott, PhD, 1:02:34 - Q & A) Myths symbolize ideas, values, history and other issues that are important to a people. They may be true or false, mundane or fantastic; their significance is their meaning, not their narrative content. Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. Its conclusions tentatively may be true or false, but its significance is its explanatory power: one has confidence in the process of science, even though some explanations change over time. Myth and science thus seem very different, but each has been utilized by proponents of both sides of the Christian creationism and evolution controversy. Eugenie Scott, Founding Executive Director, National Center for Science Education Understanding, explores how this role is essential in comprehending (much less mediating) this persistent conflict. Recorded on 10/04/2018. [11/2018] [Show ID: 34011]
More from: UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures
(www.uctv.tv/gradcouncil)
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/science)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
![The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2CnZ3n8I5b8/mqdefault.jpg)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those opposed to the study of evolution don't trust their faith to be strong enough
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those opposed to the study of evolution don't trust their faith to be strong enough
Jesus is the one who said God created everything
do you think he had problems with his faith
Evolutionism requires faith especially when there’s no evidence for it.
Nobody is in opposition to study how things happened. Just opposed to making false statements in school such as "evolution is a proven fact" (and would not also want them to say creation was proven fact b/c neither can be proven).
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 I know a lot of evidence for evolution and I have never heard a criticism of evolution that was based in reality. You came to your conclusions based on what your Sunday school teacher and stupid mother told you. That won't persuade anyone else.
@@grainiac7824 Evolution is a fact. If you disagree you are uneducated. Creationists think they can delete entire sections of science by waving their hands and saying "i dun get it" lmao. Evolution is proven to occur. It is still occurring.
Myths deal with _psychological_ facts. Combined with facts about _nature_ in general, Wittgenstein defines what exists as follows:
1) The world is everything that is the case.
2) What is the case, the fact, is the existence states of affairs.
3) The logical map of the facts is thought.
4) The thought is the significant proposition.
Myths are not fact!
Oops ... I think there is a subtitling mistake at around 9:57. It says "Norse editors". I think it should be "Norse eddas" (edda = saga).
Dr Scott knows her stuff. Great to hear her putting the creationist Hovind in his place.
Many covered Hovind, that cl0wn.
I hope you check out many more, cause it's worth it for sure.
When someone finally observes Macro-evolution occuring, Hovind will have finally been put in his place. In the meantime, he's won every debate he's ever done objectively. His opponents always have the burden of proof for Macro-evolution as they're on the side claiming it IS science
@@lightbeforethetunnel You're joking right???
@@lightbeforethetunnel Bahahahaahaha. You must a troll. Hovind just lies over and over and thinks that repeating nonsense and talking the most wins debates. It's called evolution, not macro evolution and it's been proved since the 50s. Learn the basics.
@@zachtastic625 Im suspecting the problem is you think "science" means whatever they wrote in your school textbook with "science" on the cover, blindly believing whatever is written like a religious text. That's not what "science" is. Science is not a body of knowledge to be blindly believed. Science is a METHOD of discovery requiring no faith... including no blind faith in academia.
2) Macro-evolution is one of the fundamental processes required to be real in order for the theory of evolution to be true. Yet, no one has ever observed Macro-evolution. Science must be observable... it's not supposed to be imaginary faith-based processes that someone just made up like that.
You were lied to in your school textbook. That's just the truth.
So if parts of the Bible are metaphorical, when do the metaphors stop? Who’s to say the entire book isn’t metaphorical?
Exactly
That is basically the killer argument against religion as a whole. Any given believer has things they take literally and things they take metaphorically, but I've yet to see (or even hear about) any that could tell you HOW they came to their particular split. Simply put, they have no mechanism for it. They just make it up.
Some will get defensive when you point this out. They'll tell you that it's obvious, that they can tell from the literary style etc. No, they can't. Their professed method may work for some parts they cherry-picked as examples, but definitely not for the whole thing.
The Bible is meant to be taken literally and is no myth. The only books written in symbol form is the Book of Revelation, Songs of Solomon and some Psalms. The Bible is divided by the first five books: the beginning, origin of the Hebrew and their Law; history, poetry, the prophets and wisdom and prophecy. The Bible is not a science book and does not oppose science. Creation has design while the theory of evolution is chance. It’s easy to ridicule the Bible if you have no understanding of its contents.
@@masada2828 Even in that short paragraph, you already contradict yourself. You're saying that the bible is to be taken literally, yet a moment later, you say it's not a science book. Thing is, it doesn't have to be a science book to make scientifically verifiable claims. There was no global flood, period. If you're saying that part of the bible is to be taken literally, then you've just undermined the book.
Masada2 well if that’s the case, then why is a “scholar”that supposedly studied the Bible saying otherwise in this video. Another reason Christianity is bullshit, none of you can agree on any of it. So spare me with the “I know everything about the secrets of the universe” shit. Cuz you don’t. That’s the thing about atheists and scientists, we don’t pretend to know everything, we say “this is what we think, but let’s check it and make sure”.
How could day 4 be the creation of the sun and moon etc when 4 days had to have passed first? That’s like saying on day 4, he created “days” lol
If you want unbiased Dissection
of Religion and real non-hateful Disccusions,
i recommend 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'.
He will never hate on people... and never sell you s-it...
Believe or not, those were days humans could live by 'thousand of years.' Even, Christianity 'has evolved' into so many types and kinds of religious practices. If, only ONE GOD, this world would be much PEACEFUL & GRATIFYING!
The sun was created i think 1 or 2 days after the plants. Plants were made fully mature and could survive a couple of days without the sun. Imagine a baby Adam and a baby Eve waiting for their seeds to grow in order to get food, that wouldn't work.
@@andrewloretta4523 That's a problem for the Adam and Eve story, not science. Since Adam and Eve didn't exist, and we know that, there is no reason to believe fully formed plants were created for them. It's that simple lmfao.
That one, to me, seems clear--- God (or whatever or whoever was there before time as we know it_-- would have to have been OUTSIDE of time in order to start the whole thing b/c the whole thing includes time as we know it. The easiest analogy for me is The Truman Show. He was in a world that seemed complete but in the end he was in a bubble and everyone else was OUTSIDE of his world.
Why are creationists so terrified of the concept of evolution, why by the way they don't understand? Sure, they are also afraid of geology and astronomy that deals with the real age of the earth and the universe, but nothing scares them more than evolution for some reason.
HWAT?
Yeah.. evolution ..
@@fearlessswiftie6458
If you want unbiased Dissection of Religion and real non-hateful Disccusions, i recommend 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'.
I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure we could prove scientifically that Beethoven was better than Bieber...
At least objectively. Definitely yes. Beethoven goes through more melodies in 10 seconds than Bieber ever will in his whole lifetime.
Bieber definitely superior. Although I've not studied music or heard of any the tunes by this "Bieber" and "Beethoven" or ever heard of either of them, I had an uncle who was a music expert and although I've never spoken with him about this, or spoken with him at all, or seen him, or seen a photo of him, or read his stuff, or heard anything about him, and I'm just now realizing that I only recently made him up, still I do have a Natural Instinct for music.
grindup - LOL!
@@grindupBaker ....Yes, but *I* do know your uncle. I have a personal relationship with him (the one you made up). He revealed himself to me. He indeed told me Bieber is NOT superior. He chose me to share the real secrets of the proper path to real music. If you come to my house once a week for a few hours, you will be rewarded with infinite access to all of the best music...even after you die to stave off the bordem of the afterlife. (Hope you like Metal)
....now send me your money
There are no scientific proofs.
This is sad and the very problem of the American ideology. We put things that we do not quite understand into a box that undermines and almost eradicated its essence. Sad.
Or it is sad that we put the wrong ideology (biblical world view) into a box because we do not understand the real evidence (or don't want to admit we are wrong) scientists offer as support for creationism.
Yeah sad to say but we are arrogantly ignorant.
@Michael Greif Atheism has no pre-eminence in discernment, the PROPER position for those who "don't know" is to ADMIT IT, there is no more proof of your silly superstition than any other!
@@jamestcatcato7132 see that's where you scientists fuck things up. Evidence is not proof... never has been and never will be, no matter how overwhelming
@@raywinsor3948 we all know there is no real evidence for the biblical world view,none!, you know this too but pretend you don't.
All religions are based on at least one big lie,no matter the shape or height of your hat....there is no god,that is
Myths: Can tell us a lot about our fears, our passion, our courage, our solidarity, our vunrability, our strength and much more. But has no business explaining how to repair cars or building airplanes, or climate change.
Science: Can tell us a lot about movement, dynamics, structures, technology, chemistry, biology, medicine, plants and the history of life. But it has no use in explaining how to make good pasta or why people are racist.
People are racist bc theyre tired of being called racists just bc they vote for freedom
Science can't explain how to make good pasta or why people are racist? Since when?!
Psychology can explain racism (bias). Neuroscience covers what part of the physical brain is in charge of subjective prejudice. Evolutionary biology can explain how prejudice has developed in our species as a result of natural selection, and it suggests how we are evolving past it.
Chemistry can explain how to boil water as well as how pasta is cooked. A portion of culinary arts schooling is chemistry science, specifically regarding cooking.
Social science can tell us a lot about why people are racists.
@@theoldredballoon I think the emphasis is on "good" pasta. Some people like it al dente, some like it soft. I can tell you how long you need to boil 3kg of water with induction cooker to make 1kg of premade pasta of a certain viscosity, but I can't tell you that this is *the* way of making pasta.
From a Christian university... "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."
Pretty much the same applies in 🇬🇧 but the _creationists_ are getting stronger to the detriment of our schools. It's not yet as bad as some of the *USA* but there are science teachers who teach the kids that the planet is only just over 6,000 years old and was _created._
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 My advice is to go to war against them. The education of the children is the most important factor for the future prosperity of the nation that is under your control. Anti-science bullshit cannot help the children grow to be productive adults.
@@walkergarya
I do what I can but age, poverty and disability limit that.
@@philaypeephilippotter6532 I agree. By the color of your beard, you have a few years on me but mileage may vary.
@@walkergarya
My _avatar_ is indeed a photo of me. I've lived on this planet since 1953 and I'm still 21 years old. A day when I don't learn something new is a day wasted. Don't waste yours as I don't waste mine.
To quote a brilliant atheist, _may your god go with you._
Recorded in 2018. Great! Eugenie is a favourite and it seems a long time since I saw some newish material. The story about the Train was one of my and my siblings' favourites when I was a child glued to public radio in the early 60s.
" it seems a long time since I saw some newish material"
Did you know she retired?
@@walkergarya ok thanks- 😭
@@Longtack55 I wanna say: Wisecrack,
Hbomberguy, FTFE,
they all also cover Clima-Change-Denial (AND other c-theorys), so by all means: Be my guest.
Science try to disprove itself all the time to improve itself,and with it improve the gemam race, quality of life
Healthy care , medications, technaogia tha allow scans, medications.
That is not true.
Science tries to rewrite everything so it all fits and erase the flaws
@@Rabbit.760 It ain't working.
@@TheMickeymental it wont make their theories true but they continue to push it forward and force our kids to learn it. Why? Who the fk knows
@@Rabbit.760 It fails the logic test that is how a person knows.
I would separate myths from religious teachings. As there are many stories about the great flood among many ancient peoples and there is some truths in them. Were someone build a boat and save either animals or plants as in the Indian Verdi's. Which happens three times.
Like Greece God's could they be a form civilization that were washed away leaving to not so sophisticated farmers in the hills to survive. Over the years the stories of those washed away become gods.
Now you come to the monotheistic religion and when want impress the Mass's you have the all mighty one God and he is the all seeing how else can scare the Mass's with eternal damnation so they serve you like a king
It a good grift if you are to lazy to work for a living.
No, Noah's Flood is bullshit, like 90% of the bible.
Can someone come at me with any clear evidence for creationism other than the beginning of Genesis at all
Joseph Shipman -Sorry I missed this earlier. I think I can (and tried to in your other post) provide evidence science gives us. First, science gave us the theoretical event called the Big Bang, a singularity (or quantum fluctuation) that contained all that exists (at a sub atomic level), into being, or simply put everything came from nothing. Yet, nowhere else in the known universe do we observe this. So, nowhere does something come from nothing. That gives us a good start for creation. The universe was no longer thought to be eternal. So, what was the creator of everything [remember the complexity of it all: (energy, light, sound, fusion, thermal, electricity etc.) and the precision of it’s workings, gravity, time, etc. we would expect a random event to release a chaotic result but, what we have is orderly, mathematically orderly.
This is how I look at creation. Life as we know it on earth shows no evidence that it ‘evolved’ into being, that life came from non-life. Here on Earth we would call this spontaneous generation. Science disproved this theory long ago. Yet there are many examples of how it did evolve to adapt to its environment.
Science has been able to create diversity through hybridization, but has never been able to reverse the process to take the new specie back to its origin. That would be a very convincing step to take anything living back to its first kind. It would be convincing if science could find any original living specimens and genetically show the changes (and not merely the rearrangement of genetic info) in new information that changed into something new. Never happened. No evidence ever shows a fish turning into a land mammal.
All of your questions are available online if you’d take the time to look. If you can explain to me how first life (a single living cell) came from nothing and was so perfect it was already able to replicate, Divide, or reproduce and evolve a nervous system and sensory abilities, etc., I’d start listening to you more seriously.
Not quite, Big Bang cosmology studies the after effects of the early expansion of the universe. The classical model starts with the singularity. It did not come from nothing. Tiktaalik is a great example of a fish to tetrapod transition or fish-a-pod, but it wasn't a first kind because that concept is nebulous. Leptocyon is considered to be the first canine, but it's not the first canid. There is no first dog.
None of the things you mentioned are actually evidence for creation. You are just simply critiquing gaps in scientific understanding. It is like saying there is no theory for quantum gravity, therefore gravity is false and some other theory you propose must then be true.
@@haggismcbaggis9485 But something had to have come from nothing.... every human has 2 parents so one could not have evolved from another b/c the time it would take to evolve would require sustaining its life and without the 46 chromosomes it would not have maintained itself...
Excellent. The Ashley Montagu quote, "Science is truth without certainty." is classic. Evolution is a scientific theory which has not been falsified. Creationism is a belief (myth) for which there is no evidence. Believe it or not... your choice beyond disproof.
@Antonio Iniguez - The six meanings of evolution you state are found at Eric Hovind's website - creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evolution/ - which is a creationist advocacy.
Origins are singularities, the beginnings of a new state, with evolution being the following progression of changes.
The theory of evolution is a scientific proposition supported by evidence. Understanding it is best done by visiting scientific websites of which there are thousands. Try evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25 for one view.
One difference between the creationist and scientific views is certainty, which creationists hold and scientists do not.
The "Six Meanings" you cite is a misdirection from studied inquiry.
@Antonio Iniguez - Thanks to DNA research many biologists now dismiss speciation as a definitive term. One friend, a research biologist, now refuses to use it. One difference between science and belief is that scientists changing their characterizations based on new evidence.
@Antonio Iniguez - If you have brothers and/or sisters you have all the evidence you need. I have one of each, same parents, the differences are irrefutable.
Considering your references, I'm guessing you are a creationist. Young earth (10,000 year old) or old earth (13.7 billion year old cosmos)?
Scientific theories include facts and uncertainties. There are always surprises based on emperical findings. Consider this www.sciencealert.com/the-mass-of-a-proton-is-lighter-than-we-previously-thought
Evolution is a fact, but the theory of evolution has many uncertainties, but no falsifications.
@Antonio Iniguez - It is. I did not say "the theory of evolution by natural selection is a fact." That is a scientific theory which is the target for empirical falsification. There are many scientific theories. Here are a top ten www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories | Note the absence of the BBT which some scientists consider more an idea than scientific theory.
Evolution is a word with many meanings www.lexico.com/en/definition/evolution | My sibling reference is more about the second meaning "The gradual development of something" than the first.
Several problems exist in a discussion like this, one being the levels of certainty and uncertainty. Your point of mini-evolution is a fact. The ToE is a scientific theory which has not been falsified which means it is neither fact nor false, only uncertain.
A significant basis for the disagreement in this matter is the existence of god which I see as a distraction. Would not a god beyond knowing be able to create a universe where transcendent forces continued creating new forms?
Good to see Genie still out there fighting the good fight.
So, you think EVILution is a"fact" huh? Well, here's a fact for you - Explosions CANNOT create INFORMATION. Period.
There. I just debunked your ENTIRE set of FAIRY TALES in 4 measly words. BOOM! Don't you feel STUPID.
@@ForeverBleedinGreen can you elaborate on that. Who proved it? How did they prove it? Can you give me a source, if it was done by actual researchers there would have been a paper peer reviewed and published explaining exactly how they went about doing so.
@@ForeverBleedinGreen Your so immature you make
Evolution into another Word;
effectively making people laugh the second you use that New Word!
/EPIC FAIL.
@@ForeverBleedinGreen Your so immature you make
Evolution into another Word;
effectively making people laugh the second you use that New Word!
/EPIC FAIL.
@@thespeaker908 If you were asking on how evolution was proven, keep in mind (kind of) recently evolution with molecular life (E.coli) has been directly observed in person with Michigan States experimental evolution study.
Now obviously, this is just a minute example of the literal mountains of direct fossil, and genetic proof that exists. But this is one of the times it's actually been watched in a lab.
Evolution has been regarded to, and classified, as a fact for multiple decades at this point. It literally took 10 minutes for evolution to gather 5x more evidence than creationism has had to gather for thousands of years.
Denying evolution in 2023 is a true testament on how fear mongering in religion is a disgusting, archaic, and harmful thing. This condition is especially common in the US.
Keep in mind the term "Scientific theory" which is what evolution is, has absolutely NOTHING to do with guessing as the word "theory" does in everyday speech, this is a very common ignorant fallacy pushed by creationists.
I lost it at 8.51 when se said "myths are more important than facts". I kinda threw up a little.
That myth is more important than facts is just a statement of, well, fact.
Keep in mind that this statement is descriptive not prescriptive. That is, the statement describes how human history and current state of society actually works, it doesn't mean this is the only or even necessarily the best way to operate.
If you could look at any political system, religion, ideology, etc in a dispassionate and objective manner, you would probably find that most of the stuff that they subscribe to is pretty inconsistent with reality.
She started with "To a people..." You've left something out.
She meant to some people. Which is true. A lot of people prioritize myths over facts.
@@Spiritfba Yeah. Like the wannabe Apes prioritize the myth of Evolutionism over the fact of creation..
@@jaydelgado1994 Do you mean creationism is a law? Please link me to the the great body of evidence that undoubtedly supports a law.
At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.
Matthew 11:25
Amen, very refreshing to read. 😃
Like how Jesus' God hid the knowledge of these things from non-religious people, but revealed them to His prophet Muhammad?
So the flat earthers were correct after all!!
@@IIrandhandleII I hope you are kidding.
@@IIrandhandleII We can SEE & VERIFY that there are *TWO* celestial poles (North & South). The stars in Northern Hemisphere rotate *counterclockwise* around the North celestial pole. While in the Southern Hemisphere, stars rotate *clockwise* around the South celestial pole. The Spherical Earth has *TWO* celestial poles, North & South. But the Fraudulent Flat Earth only has *ONE* celestial pole in the center of its Fairytale Pizza-shaped World. So the Observable Reality does prove the Scientific Truth that the Earth is Spherical and Rotating around its axis.
*How ironic for Deceived & Brainwashed Flat-Earthers, EVIDENCE for the SPHERICAL Earth can literally be seen in the HEAVENS.*
Flat-Earthers are gaslighted scientific-illiterates with Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Homo luzonensis, fossil remains of at least two adults and one child of a new hominin species found in Callao Cave on the island of Luzon in the Philippines dated to between 50,000-67,000 years old. This discovery was announced in April of this year by a team led by Florent Détroit from the Musée de l’Homme in Paris, France, and it’s exciting not just because it’s a new species, but because of how it changes our earlier understanding of the first hominin migrations out of Africa and into Asia. Homo luzonensis was around at the same time as Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, and our own species, Homo sapiens, but it displays a unique mosaic of physical characteristics unlike any of these other hominins. Some of its features look very ancient - for instance, the small size and simplified crowns of its molars and the 3D shape and curvature of its finger and toe bones look most similar to australopiths - whereas other features of its teeth are more similar to Paranthropus, Homo erectus, and even Homo sapiens!
@@nenmaster5218 I follow mostly academic biology and science channels
@@IIrandhandleII Yeh, i take-back my recommendation of Wisecrack. But yeah, Roanoke Gaming put a nice new Spin on 'biology and science channell' and of course Zee Frank is mostly a Comedian but that has worht too, and then theres Debunkers klike Sci-Man-Dan, theres so many flavors
@@nenmaster5218 I like gutsick gibbon
Is pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps a powerful American myth or is it a powerful conspiracy theory?
If you want unbiased Dissection of Religion and real non-hateful Disccusions, i recommend 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'. He will never hate on people... and never sell you s-it...
It's not a conspiracy theory at all. It is a powerful myth because it might be a part of a sociological explanation of why American businesses are so innovative and (not coincidentally) why America attracts such innovative immigrants to this day.
It however cannot explain why Americans in the bottom half/bottom third of the income and wealth distribution do so poorly compared to corresponding groups in other advanced countries. That's where the power of the myth turns sinister, because it makes it politically harder to help the poor like other countries do.
One position is metaphysics on steroids, and the other is science.
Experiment and observation.
Experiment and observation in a nanosecond of time compared to the eons of time in which you have no knowledge that the rules have always been the same. Bacon's scientific method is true, but man's observations are limited.
@@thelordbepraised8474 I wanna say: Wisecrack,
Hbomberguy, FTFE,
they all also cover Clima-Change-Denial (AND other c-theorys), so by all means: Be my guest.
@@thelordbepraised8474 We have no reason to believe physics worked differently a long time ago and it is unreasonable for us to assume it did just because physics working the way it does disproves your religion lol. You have bias and no expertise here. Creationists take another loss.
Creationism / Intelligent Design: "Humpty-Dumpty in the clouds making the universe by magic." Pre-school fairy tales for the ignorant and deluded !
Not by magic. By the science you study
Intelligent Designing is not magic. You discover more and more of it everyday
@@Rabbit.760 By all mean Rabbit; enlighten me on how your gods were created / evolved and how they made a universe.
@@triplejudy God always was outside of time and space. He made everything at once, therefore it all worked out as so. Everything is a big cycle in favor of human life, and without one piece, the rest cannot exist. The sun keeps us in orbit for 4 perfect seasons, makes the light, makes the energy, evaporates the water, grows the plants, produces the oxygen, reflects off the moon, builds the tides, recycles the oceans, cools down the earth, etc etc at infinitum. It's all an amazing plan, not a horrible accident
@@Rabbit.760
Blimey ' God is outside time and space ' and then you make the claim that you know he made everything just for you.
Sounds like a three year old talking.
Claiming to know what you cannot possibly know,Is simply showing your ignorance.
*Evolution Vs CreationISM* The roots of an atheistic religion.
One would think from the 20 million google hits that this debate involves fiercely opposing explanations for the same historical observations. But this dichotomy is utterly false for the following reasons:
*1.* Evolution is merely a theory about how pre-existing life changes while the latter is broadly defined as a belief that a supernatural reality brought into existence all time, space and matter by an act of freewill.
2 A more apt title might be Evolution Vs Religion or Evolution Vs Bible.
*3.* Even more specifically, If the cynics are honest, what it’s really about is *Darwinism Vs Genesis.* And in particular their clever ploy to attack fundamentalism’s young earth and 6 day creation literal interpretation.
4. The latter of course may well be allegorical since we are still in the 7th day of Creation according to Genesis 2:2, Psalm and 105 Hebrews 4.
*5.* The Bible is not one book, but a library of books written in most literary genre. What it isn’t, is a book of 20th century science.
*6*. As Galileo said _“the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”_
*7.* to argue for the scientific proof for Darwinian evolution from strawmaning a non-scientific religious passage is about as laughable and dishonest as it gets. It is a complete non sequitur which suggests there is far more at stake than an initial observation.
*8.* According to one honest, well decorated, atheist and evolutionary biologist, “no matter how counter intuitive or patently absurd its constructs (his science)….materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” RC Lewontin _Billions and billions of Demons_ For many evolutionists like Lewontin, allowing for intelligence or design are abhorrent! But these are EXACTLY what we observe!
*9.* The only thing these opposing ideologies have in common, is they are both depend on faith-based assumptions.
*10* Despite the title, Darwinian theory says nothing about creation events or origins. It is merely a blind, bottom up, mindless, unguided process that assumes simple molecules given an impossible brief, produced a very intelligent, conscious being like us, by--- “common descent” and NOT heaven forbid, Common Design.
*11.* An absolute beginning for all time. Space and matter is actually a religiously neutral statement but has atheist cosmologists fantasizing about how natural forces produced all of nature in the finite past.
*12.* Both Science and religious Gen 1:1 have to account for the miracle of Creation ex nihilo. *13.* Despite the knockdown claim that “evolution is a fact”, there is much debate e.g. in the “Evolutionism” series of videos to indicate it is anything but.
*14* Only within theism do we have the necessary intellectual framework to explain existence from non existence and thus why we have a finite, awe-inspiring, rationally intelligible, abstract law-abiding, life-supporting universe .
*15.* The real problem is I suggest, not an intellectual one but a moral one. As CS Lewis observed, _“an atheist cant find God for the same reason a thief cant find a policeman.”_
Huge epic difference between Evolution and creation.
First off a theory in science such as the theory of Evolution is a fact, a theory explains a Scientific fact.
Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence where Creationism is not.
Evolution is supported by Science, which is the best support anything can get..
Creationism is not...
Creationism is based off a story and other unverified claims
Evolution is based off observation and again, Mountains of evidence.
Evolution always wins no matter what you put it up against, evolution is reality.
The Bible is a poorly written collection of books, by no means is it a moral guide as it's a horrible book full of violence.
2000 years ago men didn't know shit about anything, the world was barely discovered and they didn't know Jack shit about Science.
Quoting the Bible is probably the most useless thing you can do.
@@badideass _"evolution is a fact creation is not"_ Try actually reading the full post before making a fool of yourself. Pardon us if we don't accept your silly ipse dixit response to the many facts based arguments in this post. Anyone with other than a blind, unguided. bottomup mentality would have some ability to offer a facts-based, point-by-point challenge.
So please give a cogent argument of how anything exists now if the past is finite. Hint start with general relavity, space/time/ Infinite regress Fallacy, proceed to the origin and existence of our finite, rationally-intelligible awe-inspiring abstract law abiding universe. Explain how nature created itself and then u from absolutely nothing without a cause beyond space, time and matter. Then give us your best argument that "proves" Darwinian evolution. Hint : don't watch any of the "Evolutionless" videos if u believe Darwinian evolution is "a fact"
@@badideass tell us what u find offensively immoral in the Bible and on whose authority do u base that morality? Wasn't DORKINS right in declaring, *"there's no purpose, no good, no evil just blind pitiless indifference.? "* So was it slavery, the slaughter of the Canaanites, Mosaic law, one of the 10 Commandments, the doctrine of atonement or the fact that u hate the idea of ultimate justice⚖️?
the garden of Eden and the forbidden tree of enlightenment. this tree and the snake is actually a story out of context. the ancients Inca Maya or Egyptian as well as Sumerians has the origin of this story. the origin a a world tree with branches on trough the branches of the world tree goes serpents and trough the mouth of the serpents comes the gods that come and go to and from the world tree. this story as been changed into a fairytale. the world tree is the tree of gods law and order but translated to the forbidden tree of knowledge. the garden of Eden is obviously a fairytale referring to paradise.
I get the sentiment, but Dr. Scott comes off as overly evolution-centric in this talk. I mean it's probably true that you can convince someone that their faith and evolution can be reconciled, but...what then? I mean, does our education stop there? Is evolution the only piece of science that may clash with somebody's religious beliefs? No! The whole of reality clashes with religion. It's not just one scientific theory, it's all of them. That's because religion is ultimately only a symptom of magical thinking. We need to go deeper. The cognitive biases that religion feeds on are the same as the biases that sustain other esoteric beliefs. We need to teach about those in schools, first and foremost.
Well said. It literally is an appeal to magical reasons over physical ones. Now-a-days they even deny germ theory, gravity and climate change science.
@@Barcs Exactly. I've worked in a bookstore for some years. There was a book on home magic in our esoterics section. I opened it on a random page one day and found a passage explaining a ritual where you enchant a broom so it would sweep better. You put a clean white sheet on your bed, lay the broom on it, put some runestones around it, light a candle, say an incantation, the whole shebang. I'm quite serious. You may understand why I still remember it to this day.
And this is exactly as crazy as any religion. The only difference is that a given religion has probably been around for longer. Bill Maher has a standup bit where he talks about this, that the only reason people accept biblical stories is that they're used to those particular stories. He goes on to support his point by citing an example of an equally silly myth, but one most people are NOT familiar with. Specifically, he recounts the creation myth of Scientology. If you've never heard that one, look it up. It'll make your day, I promise =)
@@Barcs
If you want unbiased Dissection of Religion and real non-hateful Disccusions, i recommend 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'. He will never hate on people... and never sell you s-it...
@@slevinchannel7589 Yes! I love GMS!
@@Barcs Cool.
Theres so many more channel you dont know yet, though! The internet is BIG!
This is a very well compiled argument
what part exactly ?
If you want unbiased Dissection of Religion and real non-hateful Disccusions, i recommend 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'. He will never hate on people... and never sell you s-it...
@@TKO67 the entire thing
If you have two groups divided into fundamentalist and none-believing students. Will one on these groups have myths resistant the the acceptance of empiricism?
There's nothing empirical in evolution. What a joke. You can't study it, test it and repeat it.
Science and religion influence politics,?
Religion definitely does.
Religion for sure does. Since majority of the population unfortunately believe in God, politicians use religion as a tool.
Thats right, they use religion as a tool... But you forgot, they use science as a weapon
@@Rabbit.760 ✔️ in his face.
@@Rabbit.760 ahem...bullshit religion is bullshit and is a dangerous weapon. Science is TRUTH MORONS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! IT'S NOT A WEAPON. IF ANYONE USES IT AS AN ILLOGICAL WEAPON THEN THAT'S A PROBLEM.
What a FANTASTIC lecture! Thank you for sharing this. Incredible.
THere is no atheistic religion.
Religion is the lack of Religious belief. If you bite into the laughable idea that Atheism is a religion;
made up by silly Theists to discredit Atheism; you are gullable af
AND YOU MAY AS WELL accept Abstinence as an s-position.
God created the universe, Science reveals the ending.
Science did not created the universe, God knows anything and the ending than humanity does ¿Does we have to accept the gradual effect of this?
¿Does the bible tells that God's creation has an ending, including the universe? ¿Does the bible teach on this?
Why does it matter what the Bible says? The men who wrote the Bible knew sweet fuck all about the universe, they knew sweet fuck all about our planet, they had no idea north America existed, shit they even though the planet was flat.
If Science can't answer something then we don't know...
No god has ever been demonstrated to exist, asserting a god is like dividing by 0 you're gonna get 0 every time. No evidence supports the god hypothesis
Yeah, no. That's just youre silly believes and has no proof or evidence.
Also, it's not about 'Who created it'. This isnt an ownership-court-battle, DUH.
Introduction
O man! You should be aware that there are certain phrases which are commonly used and imply unbelief. The believers also use them, but without realizing their implications. We shall explain three of the most important of them.
The First:
"Causes create this."
The Second:
"It forms itself; it comes into existence and later ceases to exist."
The Third:
"It is natural; Nature necessitates and creates it."
Indeed, since beings exist and this cannot be denied, and since each being comes into existence in a wise and artistic fashion, and since each is not outside time but is being continuously renewed, then, O falsifier of the truth, you are bound to say either that the causes in the world create beings, for example, this animal; that is to say, it comes into existence through the coming together of causes, or that it forms itself, or that its coming into existence is a requirement and necessary effect of Nature, or that it is created through the power of One All-Powerful and All-Glorious. Since reason can find no way apart from these four, if the first three are definitely proved to be impossible, invalid and absurd, the way of Divine Unity, which is the fourth way, will necessarily and self-evidently and without doubt or suspicion, be proved true.
THE FIRST WAY
This to imagine that the formation and existence of things, creatures, occurs through the coming together of the causes in the universe. We shall mention only three of its numerous impossibilities.
First Impossibility
Imagine there is a pharmacy in which there are hundreds of jars and phials filled with quite different substances. A living potion and a living remedy are required from those medicaments. So we go to the pharmacy and see that they are to be found there in abundance, yet in great variety. We examine each of the potions and see that the ingredients have been taken in varying but precise amounts from each of the jars and phials, one ounce from this, three from that, seven from the next, and so on. If one ounce too much or too little had been taken, the potion would not have been living and would not have displayed its special quality. Next, we study the living remedy. Again, the ingredients have been taken from the jars in a particular measure so that if even the most minute amount too much or too little had been taken, the remedy would have lost its special property.
Now, although the jars number more than fifty, the ingredients have been taken from each according to measures and amounts that are all different. Is it in any way possible or probable that the phials and jars should have been knocked over by a strange coincidence or sudden gust of wind and that only the precise, though different, amounts that had been taken from each of them should have been spilt, and then arranged themselves and come together to form the remedy? Is there anything more superstitious, impossible and absurd than this? If an ass could speak, it would say: "I cannot accept this idea!", and would gallop off!
Similarly, each living being may be likened to the living potion in the comparison, and each plant to a living remedy. For they are composed of matter that has been taken in most precise measure from truly numerous and truly various substances. If these are attributed to causes and the elements and it is claimed, "Causes created these," it is unreasonable, impossible and absurd a hundred times over, just as it was to claim that the potion in the pharmacy came into existence through the phials being knocked over; by accident.
In Short:
The vital substances in this vast pharmacy of the universe, which are measured on the scales of Divine Determining and Decree of the All-Wise and Pre-Eternal One, can only come into existence through a boundless wisdom, infinite knowledge and all-encompassing will. The unfortunate person who declares that they are the work of blind, deaf and innumerable elements and causes and natures, which stream like floods; and the foolish, delirious person who claims that that wondrous remedy poured itself out when the phials were knocked over and formed itself, are certainly unreasonable and nonsensical. Indeed, such denial and unbelief is a senseless absurdity.
THE SECOND WAY
This is expressed by the phrase "It forms itself." It too involves many impossibilities and is absurd and impossible in many aspects. We shall explain three examples of these impossibilities.
First Impossibility
O you obstinate denier! Your egotism has made you so stupid that somehow you decide to accept a hundred impossibilities all at once. For you yourself are a being and not some simple substance that is inanimate and unchanging. You are like an extremely well-ordered machine that is constantly being renewed and a wonderful palace that is undergoing continuous change. Particles are working unceasingly in your body. Your body has a connection and mutual relations with the universe, in particular with regard to sustenance and the perpetuation of the species, and the particles that work within it are careful not to spoil that relationship nor to break the connection. In this cautious manner they set about their work, as though taking the whole universe into account. Seeing your relationships within it, they take up their positions accordingly. And you benefit with your external and inner senses in accordance with the wonderful positions that they take. If you do not accept that the particles in your body are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining, with each particle as the nib of a pen, or that they are points inscribed by the pen of Power with each particle being a point, then in every particle working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as could see every limb and part of your body as well as the entire universe, with which you are connected. In addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle an intelligence equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses, sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your future, and your forbears and descendants, the origins of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all your sustenance.
To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a thousand Plato's to a single particle of one such as you who does not possess even a particle's worth of intelligence in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand times over!
THE THIRD WAY
"Nature necessitates it; Nature makes it." This statement contains many impossibilities. We shall mention three of them by way of examples.
First Impossibility
If the art and creativity, which are discerning and wise, to be seen in beings and particularly in animate beings are not attributed to the pen of Divine Determining and Power of the Pre-Eternal Sun, and instead are attributed to Nature and force, which are blind, deaf and unthinking, it becomes necessary that Nature either should have present in everything machines and printing-presses for their creation, or should include in everything power and wisdom enough to create and administer the universe. The reason for this is as follows:
The sun's manifestations and reflections appear in all small fragments of glass and droplets on the face of the earth. If those miniature, reflected imaginary suns are not ascribed to the sun in the sky, it is necessary to accept the external existence of an actual sun in every tiny fragment of glass smaller than a match-head, which possesses the sun's qualities and which, though small in size, bears profound meaning; and therefore to accept actual suns to the number of pieces of glass.
In exactly the same way, if beings and animate creatures are not attributed directly to the manifestation of the Pre-Eternal Sun's Names, it becomes neciessary to accept that in each being, and especially animate beings, there lies a nature, a force, or quite simply a god that will sustain an infinite power and will, and knowledge and wisdom. Such an idea is the most absurd and superstitious of all the impossibilities in the universe. It demonstrates that a man who attributes the art of the Creator of the universe to imaginary, insignificant, unconscious Nature is without a doubt less conscious of the truth than an animal.
Risale-i Nur Collection 174 - Bediüzzaman Said Nursî
THere is no atheistic religion.
Religion is the lack of Religious belief. If you bite into the laughable idea that Atheism is a religion;
made up by silly Theists to discredit Atheism; you are gullable af
AND YOU MAY AS WELL accept Abstinence as an s-position.
Lol the more time you nitwits spend writing walls of text, the less time you can spend lying to schoolchildren.
Evolution has great explanatory,predictive powers. Defending Biblical creationism Maybe obsolete and "vanity" to use Bible term.
Really. Well prey tell then, why Darwin's theory had to be shelved/ tweaked/ other theories advanced and still "science" cannot predict how something will come from nothing.
@@grainiac7824 Science doesn't have the task of explaining how "something came from nothing", since nobody in science thinks that ever happened.
@@grainiac7824 Ever study Deism? The universe gives the APPEARANCE that generally it operates under predictable natural, intrinsic laws. I'm not saying there has NEVER been any " intrusions" of a Divine Being. But for the most part, it seems he just lets the universe run down on its own. It's like an older clock that needs to be rewinded every 30 billion years.
@@grainiac7824
All theories are tweaked. The operations of scientific research are always about expanding the knowledge base, challenging theories and other research are essential activities.
If that didn't happen then we shpuld be suspicious. We should wonder if it is dogma not theory.
But it has always been challenged and expanded, and changed.
@@teddansonLA Incorrect. Even evolutionists say the primordial soup was always there. Something or someone always was there for any this else to develop.
Evolution (fact) vs Creationism (mythology)
Yeah I've never seen evolution falsified, no one has ever come close.
Evolution wins 100% of the time when compared to mythology
Neither one was proven nor falsified... get real
@@Rabbit.760 scientific theory begs to differ.
Biology begs to differ
@Henry Dalcke are they peer reviewed?
@@badideass you're one of those guys that says scientific theory isn't a theory? If so, fkn fantastic
@@Rabbit.760 Do you even know what a Scientific Theory is?
She does not do justice when quoting theologians. She should quote reformed theologians instead. Also, if she believes in evolution, she should stick with empirical data to prove evolution. And empirical data does not prove evolution is true, but non the less she take it as true. Therefore she believes in myth. To her evolution is a faith and religion.
Plenty of evidence points towards evolution being true
"Assuage" is pronounced "uh-SWAYJ," not "uh-SWAHJ" as Dr. Scott does on more than one occasion. It rhymes with "sage," not "massage."
I wanna say: Wisecrack,
Hbomberguy, FTFE,
they all also cover Clima-Change-Denial (AND other c-theorys), so by all means: Be my guest.
You know she is a native born American with a PhD?
wow, who gives a fuck?
I thank Dr. Scott for the lecture which was, to say the least, enlightening & entertaining. The list & descriptions of religious groups that accept, endorse, respect etc. evolution was new to me (albeit not anything that personally concerns me).I tend to think that the gulf between Evolutionists and Theists is more likely to be narrowed by the "mix & match" groups I've just mentioned. We Evolutionists, are more likely than not, I think, to feel that discussions and attempts to persuade Theists are a waste of time. On the other hand, it seems to me that the general drift is from Theism toward Evolution rather that the other way around. That pleases me, of course.
Has Dr Scott proven anything? Let her explain how evolution brought about the first matter. Where the energy for the 'big bang' came. How order continues to be brought about by mindless disorder. She should tell is the conditions necessary for the first cell to be formed and calculate probability of all those conditions coming together just by chance or mindless randomness. You guys should use your head
@@codewithyemi: I have no trouble recommending that you continue to accept the totally logical and consistent Biblical story. Meanwhile, we Evolutionists, are satisfied with the Theory of Evolution, gaps and all.
@@waggishsagacity7947 yes, evolution is a religion. It doesn't belong to the realm of science as it's never proven using the scientific method. I learn that from high school. Never can anyone by any experiment create a living cell, the tiniest thing. So, those who prefer that religious devotion to evolution are free to do so too. It's simply misleading to keep teaching it in schools as fact.
@@codewithyemi Have it you way, Pal.
Pleases me too, because the Bible predicted that would happen--- "a great turning away" it was called there.
Amazing lecture. You are such a wonderful speaker. Unfortunately, the comments section here is full of idiots. I was hoping to find some intelligent discussion but of course it’s just riddled with religious fanatics, as usual.
Not everywhere is like that!!
If you want unbiased Dissection of Religion and real non-hateful Disccusions, i recommend 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'. He will never hate on people... and never sell you s-it...
Funny how no creationist can give us an approx time / date when the' magic' day happened and humans suddenly appeared.
Cmon boys, take a punt.
In the beginning.
@@rythmhtyr1w2e89
When was the 'beginning' ?
6000,years ago ?
10,000 years ago?
20,000 years ago ?
13 billion years ago ?
Cmon creationists, have a punt.
No one knows that's why we say beginning.......punt???
@@rythmhtyr1w2e89
Sounds like a cop out.
Evolution by natural selection from common ancestors can tell us how and when homo sapiens appeared.
Creationism is nonsense.
@Henry Dalcke
Funny how some religious folks claim supernatural miracles are true without a shread of evidence, yet deny evolution with its mountains oc actual evidence.
Abiogenesis Hypothesis has been considered to be a modern derivative of the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis (i.e. the common fundamental premise being life arising from non-living matter), one of the main differences being the supposed timeframes of each experimentally unproven process. Generally, the Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis speculated that living organisms spontaneously emerged from non-living matter. And, Abiogenesis posits that undirected random natural processes caused molecules to form into biological life by random chance over the span of millions/billions of years. (Note: Natural selection is not known to have any effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment.) Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis was believed to be ‘fact’ for almost 2000 years, until it was scientifically disproved by experiments from such scientists as Louis Pasteur in the 1800's.
From Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred."
One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
I get that meticulously careful, rigorous, repeated and creative testing and observation are needed for good science and to go on bringing to humanity the many benefits we had already from all kinds of hard science. Can anyone explain or direct me to a webpage that explains what practical benefits we get as a species from the Theory of Evolution?
I get that it's a theory that guides research but what are the examples where such research has had medical or technical utility that would not have been discovered except for the Theory of Evolution?
We have gained an understanding of our real origins instead of the fairy tales in holy books.
@@garywalker447 So do you agree that the main potential use of the Theory of Evolution is to inform human beings of their origins? Because hard science has very different goals and potential benefits.
@@wallabea9750 It is also a huge insight into understanding biology. We see, through the fossil record, how traits evolved, why a structure is the way it is. The Theory of Evolution is foundational principal to all biology.
@@garywalker447 Nah, that's just Evolutionary rhetoric. Better stated as "Evolution is foundational to all evolutionary biology." But in terms of human progress or standards of living it adds very little or nothing. You were right the first time - it's great impact is as a philosophy of origins. Otherwise, give me a real example of some benefit -?
@@wallabea9750 What, are you too stupid to use google or are you just too lazy? I am not your marionette.
You can believe creationism if you want, but don't try to assert it as fact.
Speaking of Myths..... what about that theory of Evolution... eh??
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Please refute.
@@billy9144 *crickets*
@@billy9144 He won't refute it because creationists are literally allergic to evidence. At best, he will desperately backtrack, straw man, and make weak excuses to ignore the evidence.
@Tip Of the Day You are the type who would call "earth is not the center of the world" a myth, while torturing Galileo and refusing to look through his telescope. Like the Christians did, in 1637. Imagine, having scientific proof right in front of your face, and destroying it because it is "Witchcraft"
@@danobrien6149 there's no such term as "kind" O'Brien, except in scientifically illitetate Hebrew writings. Scientists never use the word because it is a false interpretation of speciation.
How is it this scientist thinks she lives in a secular society? If anything American culture is dependent on keeping the myth alive and kicking. NO MATTER WHAT THE FACT ARE.
We need the dim and dimmer people to slow down our advances, otherwise our science, medical and human welfare would be streets ahead and no profits can be obtained by the greedy corporations that run the world.
Again resorting to personal insults, emphasizing the lack of a real and informative refute. Thank you!!
Show me where anything anywhere has changed from what it is into something different . There is no example because the world is stable !
...And, was that EVOLUTION (by ACQUIRING extra genetic information)... or, just ADAPTATION, @IdleBigots?!...
The common stance of those incapable of understanding the science is to pretend that it does not exist. If you cannot see it or experience it yourself it does not exist, so climate change, geological erosion, migration patterns, and evolution (of course) do not exist. You cannot see air but it exists, as do radio waves, sound waves, electric and magnetic fields and a host of other phenomenon that we are not naturally equipped to sense. Try telling those hit by hurricanes, flooded out by typhoons, made homeless by earthquakes or evacuated from their homes because of volcanic eruptions how stable and unchanging the Earth is. I am sure that they would have a few comments to make about you and your unchanging, stable world.
@@NephilimFree You have used a lot of words to say a lot of bollocks. 'DNA is a four dimensional package of information' - yes, if you consider time to be the fourth dimension in which it is no different from any other chemical. 'It is organised linguistically', - no it is formed around a matrix of amino acids and organised sequentially. 'We do not need to pretend that mutation experiments for 90 yrs by the hundreds of thousands have demonstrated with perfect consistency that mutations destroy genetic information and cause weakness, deformity, and death instead of evolutionary change' - we do not need to pretend because all of that is simply wrong.
Read on:- 'Although most mutations that change protein sequences are harmful or neutral, some have distinctly positive benefits'. Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DA from Prevalence of Positive Selection among Neutral Amino Acid replacement (National Academy of Sciences of the USA 2007). Creationist are always banging on about all mutations being harmful when it has been proved to the contrary by many researchers. Incidentally, as mutations are the result of random change it is impossible for them all to be harmful, or are you going to ignore the laws of probability as well as those of conventional science? 'We don't need to pretend the fossil record is void of transitional forms ' - perhaps because it is not. As evolution never ceases all fossils are transitional (got that?). There are thousands of transitional fossils in museums throughout the world. These only pose problems for the reality denying religious obsessives because it contradicts and disproves their favourite book of stories. The rest of the nonsense you posted is opinion only and, being yours, has little credibility. I think that you would do better by reading some science books that did not originate in the Discovery Institute because it would appear that you have stepped out of the bounds of reality.
@@NephilimFree You can quote mine all you want. it won't hide the fact that you are still talking a load of bollocks.
@@NephilimFree There is published research about everything from alien visitations to Flat Earth physics. None of which makes any of it more factual or relevant. A bit like the selected quotes you put so much importance in, despite the fact that they are totally irrelevant to the issue at heart about creationism being a throwback to medieval thinking. You're attempted snow job with reams of spurious quotations is nothing more than a rather clumsy effort to evade the fact that creationists have no evidence or facts to support their position. You stick to your Bronze Age book of myths and stories and I will go with conventional, orthodox science. Go back to your basement. Boy.
“Scoffers are willingly ignorant...that the world, being overflowed with water, perished.”
2 Peter 3:5-6
Quotes myth in support of myth. LOL!
One cannot reason with an atheist.
Laugh all you like.
Be not deceived: God is not mocked. Galatians 6:7
@@aircrew705 You think projecting insulting bible verses is reasoning with an atheist? No wonder you suck at it.
No one is scoffing. These are legitimate criticisms of creationism based on what we see in reality. 2 Peter does not make Biblical interpretations immune from questioning.
it's obvious by the "religionist" comments that you idiot "believer's" are in cahoots against science and this truly good and intelligent individual. religion is child abuse, cult indoctrination, mind control and a tool to limit the questioning of authority. it was invented to keep the commoner's obedient and productive. it inhibits critical thinking and corrupts minds to easily accept propaganda.
*“Why everyone is a Creationist.”*
Whether one asserts a young or old earth, random mutations Vs design, evolution or
chaos, *my major premise is: we inevitably must all be Creationists*
Creation(ism) the buzz word of critics, is broadly defined as a belief
that a supernatural reality brought into existence all time, space and matter by
an act of freewill. Cynics mostly materialists and evolutionists, believe also on
faith, that the natural world is all there is, or ever was. Proponents
cleverly but fallaciously, centre their attack on fundamentalist
religion, which maintains a young earth and a literal 6 day creation.
Whether one comes from an atheist or theistic worldview however, we can only
explain “why there is something now rather than nothing” from a faith
perspective. Darwinian Evolution Vs Creation is of course a false
dichotomy since the former says absolutely nothing about origins (creation).
*The true debate is really about Darwinism Vs Religion.* Moreover, the former is moot
in addressing the fundamental question of origins and existence, as I
assert in premise 1) below.
1) There are only two possibilities: For anything to exists now, some previous physical
state or states, a) have existed eternally in the past, or b) were created ex
nihilo (i.e from nothing in the finite past) This is a *religiously neutral*
observation but has profound implications from a metaphysical or transcendent
explanation.
2) In whatever past configuration, matter/energy must exist in dimensions of
time and space.
3) Position 1b) is the consensus of science (cosmology), mathematics, philosophy (logic)
and reason.
4) For atheism to be the default position, then some form of matter/energy must have
always existed (be eternal in the past) But this claim I will assert, is not
supported by the evidence nor logically possible.
5) *Mathematician* and genius inventor, Dave Hilbert asserts that Infinity [as in infinite past time] is just an abstract idea. *Infinity neither exists in nature nor provides
the basis for rational thought.”* An infinite future while a possibility, would
be a *potential* infinite but an infinite past if it existed, would be an
*actual* infinite. If you dont support Hilbert’s several arguments that there
is nothing in the natural realm that can be identified as an actual infinite,
I’d like to hear it!
6) Having abandoned his static model *Einstein’s cosmology* embraced the
theory of relativity which identified an absolute beginning for all
space/time. Atheist cosmologists like Hawking and Krauss recognising the
implications of this theory, have retreated into the realm of fantasy to
invent natural explanations of how everything came from absolutely nothing in
the finitude of past time. There versions of nothing is actually some thing
which is refuted by 2) above!
7) *Philosophically* nothing is non existence. An infinite past would demand an infinite regress of past physical
states (including the unproven multi-verse theory -See BVG theorem). Moreover,
any collection formed by successive temporal events cannot be an actual
infinite. Infinity is just a abstract concept, one whose value can never be
attained. Moreover, one cannot bridge an infinite amount of time since all
available evidence shows time travels linearly. If time was infinite
in the past, logically we could never have reached this current point in time
(the impossibility of transiting an infinite regress of past events). Ergo the
finitude of past time demands a creation event.
*Conclusions*
1) From any worldview perspective,, the birth of creation from nothing is a miracle that denies scientific explanation. As such we must ALL believe in a “virgin birth” aka existence from no existence.
2) Unless one wants to entertain mindless electrons
and protons as the basis of ultimate reality, one is left with the only
plausible alternative i.e. ex nihilo creation. Since X cannot create X, the
physical realm cannot create itself nor can an abstract Law like gravity cause
or create anything (sorry Dr Hawking), Nor Krauss’s quantum vacuum, which is
not nothing!
3) One is inevitably left with a cause outside of
time space and matter. That is a spaceless, timeless immaterial (and thus a
supernatural) reality.)
4) In choosing to create an awe-inspiring, abstract
law-abiding, mathematically defined, rationally-intelligible universe, its
cause must be rationally intelligent, powerful and personal.
5) Moreover, by creating an incredibly complex,
conscious, intelligent being like us, who can question his own existence,
marvel at the beauty and biodiversity of creation, with intelligence to
decipher its laws and the exquisite math’ that underpins those laws, this is
not just any deity, this is a God who cares, who created us and the universe
for a purpose.
6) *Whether a certain chapter of a religious text is to be read
literally or allegorical is irrelevant to God’s existence and role in
Creation.* Clearly Galileo was right in declaring *_the Bible teaches us
how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go* Moreover, dear friends, the Bible
is a library of books containing many literary genre but was never meant to be
a book on science.
7) To cynically suggest Creation in Genesis may have taught an
obsessed Darwinian disciple, real science is quite laughable. A science
that is “counter-intuitive”, dependent on biased assumptions about homology,
numerous fakes, huge gaps in fossil records without any evidence of how life
started, a rejection of design and based on dubious historical evidence, is
hardly factual.
8) Just how God may have chosen to create man, such as “from
the dust of the earth” is irrelevant to His motives and purpose. Moreover, the
fact we’re still in the 7th day of Creation would imply a
non-literal interpretation of such events!!
9) Moreover, the level of sophistication, design, embedded
information and intelligibility in all aspects of creation, totally destroys
any suggestion it all came about by blind, random, unguided and mindless
processes. The choice is simple: Faith-based commondescent or common
DESIGN. Deep down we all know which is the more believable worldview.
10) Lastly, can anyone truly live out Dawkins’ claim we’re just slaves
to a selfish bunch of genes living a purposeless life of pitiless
indifference? Everything that truly human nature cant be isolated
in a test tube like: beauty, joy, love, wisdom, truth, morality, justice,
meaning, hope and destiny, From all the evidence above, I just don’t have
enough faith to believe mindless matter is the only game in town! And deep down
I believe you don’t either!!
We are evolved social primates whether your 'God' exists or not.
And if your God exists, he is careful not to show any evidence he exists.
Until then , " a God type thing must have started it all argument " is an argument from ignorance.
To claim to know, what we cannot possibly know is pure speculation and unworthy of discussion
@@iainrae6159 bloody well said chap
@@badideass
Thankyou, very kind of you.
Some folks are sadly determined, not only to misunderstand evolution by natural selection, but even worse, have no interest to.
@@iainrae6159 they plug their ears and deny .
Evolution is witnessed everyday but I guess not when their heads are up their asses.
Some alarming comments by theists in this video
Argument from ignorance sounds like Hitler in his post.
Lots of uneducated folk who only care about mythology
Nice copy-paste
Ok Eugenie explain the Cambrian explosion, where all the new life forms came from? It just magicked up did it?
As we have now found a number of fossils in the late precambrian, no the fossils of the Early Cambrian did NOT just spring up from nothing.
how exactly is a period of 50+ million years an explosion ? and it came from the life that was about before the Cambrian - like Dickinsonia
Annelid, to name just one of the many soft body organisms in the fossil record.
Would you also say the period since the extinction of the dinosaurs to now was an explosion ?
Cambrian explosion was a 20-50 million year period. Imagine being duped into thinking that means all life just magically showed up at once during the cambrian. LOL.
So basically she’s 100% biased
Nope, she knows what she is talking about. She does not have to lie about the evidence, creationists do.
so basically you're 100% stupid
I am hanging in there but things are getting a bit sketchy. If you believe for one second that science is even close to pure and noble, has no agenda, only reports facts, you are severely deluded. Evolution exists to interpret scientific facts according to its ideology, its core belief system, as does creationism.
Wrong, it's based on testable data and facts.
@@zachtastic625 Again please present me even one fact of science that cannot be interpreted by any other lens. Because you want it to be true does not make it true.
@@TheGateKeeper001 Scientific evidence isn't up for interpretation like bible verses. You can't just say evidence X points to something that can't even be backed up or verified (god or creation). There is zero evidence of such. The hard evidence proves we evolved slowly over time via genetic mutations and natural selection. It's been directly observed in real time and we can extrapolate it from the past based on studying fossils and geology. If you think that you can just "intepret" evidence however you like you are deeply mistaken. Science doesn't work that way, it works with testing and finding logical connections.
@@TheGateKeeper001 I mean do you really think that you can interpret germ theory to karma or gravity to intelligent falling?
@@zachtastic625 What science is good at is unwrapping and copying the design, God holds all the patents, science can only work with, what was given him to do with in the first place. Still evading the challenge, site a single evidence/fact of evolution that can't be interpreted another way.
Beginning at 8:23, the problem that you have is that you have very poor hermeneutics; you assert the mythological nature of Genesis based not upon any real research, but rather upon your own presuppositional biases. If you had done your homework, you would have seen over and over again, that the authors of the Old Testament, as well as the authors of the New Testament, including Jesus Himself, referred to the Genesis account of creation as historical narrative. Not only this, but the word of God though Moses in Exodus 33:1, Numbers 7:89, and Numbers 12:8 tells us that the Genesis account of creation is literal and not figurative. For if it were intended to be figurative, that would be a form of a riddle, and God’s own words deny this. God discourses with Moses freely and familiarly, and without any confusion or consternation, such as was sometimes the case with other prophets such as Ezekiel, and John (the Revelation), when God spoke to them. By other prophets God sent to His people reproofs, and predictions of good or evil, which were properly enough delivered in dark speeches, figures, types, and parables; but by Moses He gave accounts of creation, laws to his people, and the institution of holy ordinances, which could by no means be delivered by dark speeches, but must be expressed in the plainest and most intelligible manner.
So these men limit God's power, God must create not according to scripture but according to Evolution, but which came first the Bible narrative or Evolution?
Huh? Why does it matter which one came first? There are accounts that predate the bible and push a different narrative by the way. Evolution is based on research, religion is faith.
@@zachtastic625 Because, if you remember, she was talking about how this creation narrative was culturally related to Judaism. What I am saying, is creation preceded Judaism by thousands of years. so she incorrectly linked them together.
@@TheGateKeeper001 no. nonsense wriggling and squirming. again. clown!
Evolution came first
@@Joshua-dc1bs and what makes you believe that?
In order for there to be an evolutionary paradigm there must first be assumptions, which when tested result in theories which when tested result in still more theories and on and on and on. Common descent could easily be attributed to common origin or a common designer/creator, which makes a hang of allot more sense than common descent from a mollusk, now that would be a miracle.
Actually, common descent is not how design generally organises its creations (I say "generally" - probably never is more correct). All the human designed things don't show a pattern of common descent, which is not surprising, since heredity is not a law of designed things. On the other hand organism do obey the laws of heredity, so common descent is the only viable explanation for the tree of life.
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves.
Basic Science 101:
Wikipedia 2021, “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.” Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS.
Wikipedia 2021, "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process ARE STILL UNKNOWN, the prevailing scientific HYPOTHESIS is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and HYPOTHESES for how abiogenesis COULD HAVE occurred."
One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
@@moses777exodus _A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis_
Sure that depends on what you mean by "question". In the case of most creationists, they are not questioning anything, they are simply in the business of denial.
Besides, as your wikipedia links show, abiogenesis is not one hypothesis, it's many. Some have better evidence than others. They are all superior to non-scientific explanations like creationism.
There are infinite explanations for anything, the arbiter of truth is accurate predictions, which evolution makes and creationism doesn’t. Does science have assumptions? Sure. It assumes that nature operates in law-like patterns. Seems like a pretty reasonable presupposition. What’s the alternative, that everything could be upended moment to moment by the will of an invisible ineffable unfalsifiable god? We couldn’t trust anything in such a world. God might decide to change the ideal gas law tomorrow on a whim.
What is more important than your relationship with god?
Being sane.
Our relationship with the planet...knowledge and its truth
@@jamesmurphy2451 absolutey correct
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson (a world renown American astrophysicist, planetary scientist, author, etc.), while referring to the Origin of Life during a panel discussion, stated, “… It’s still just organic chemistry. At the end of the day, you want to have self-replicating life. And that’s a mystery.” (Source: Real Time with Bill Maher, Overtime, October 2, 2015, HBO)
WE DON'T NEED BULLSHIT TO BE MORAL and JUST.
You don't need religion to be moral and just.
It is not known how the first RNA formed, but I can guarantee it will be discovered within this century.
The belief in purely materialistic Darwinian Evolution leads one to believe, albeit falsely, that there is no Free Will. And if there is no Free Will, then there is no Right and Wrong and no Moral Law, which is completely contrary to everything that is practiced and observed in nature, humanity, and the cosmos regarding cause and effect.
Homo luzonensis, fossil remains of at least two adults and one child of a new hominin species found in Callao Cave on the island of Luzon in the Philippines dated to between 50,000-67,000 years old. This discovery was announced in April of this year by a team led by Florent Détroit from the Musée de l’Homme in Paris, France, and it’s exciting not just because it’s a new species, but because of how it changes our earlier understanding of the first hominin migrations out of Africa and into Asia. Homo luzonensis was around at the same time as Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, and our own species, Homo sapiens, but it displays a unique mosaic of physical characteristics unlike any of these other hominins. Some of its features look very ancient - for instance, the small size and simplified crowns of its molars and the 3D shape and curvature of its finger and toe bones look most similar to australopiths - whereas other features of its teeth are more similar to Paranthropus, Homo erectus, and even Homo sapiens!
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Creation as Science and Evolutionism as Myth sounds right.
Ok
Science has of Scientific Evidence of over & over for it takes of Knowledge 1st for to make/create of things to exist. For mean Science is of KNOWLEDGE 1ST for is of Creationism of This Universe, Infinity stars, earth & us Mankind with knowledge for to & can exist. The problem with Creationism in the bible is in thinking & believing our Christian Leadership has been correct in Genesis 1 for God is saying He created all & the earth in 1 to 6-7 days for been absolutely wrong for 2000 yrs.
I'm so glad that people around the World can listen to such a briliant person! Thank You!
If Evolution does not convince you,
so may i recommend you Forrest Valkai,
Professor Dave and Aron Ra?
If you just watch them dissect Evolution-Denial, you will definetly
have an Epiphany.
@@slevinchannel7589 Thanks, but when I said that I really liked the lecture, it should be obvious that I'm fully convinced about evolution:) Anyway, if someone would ask me why we are even there, I would have to say I don't know...Why there is something rather than nothing? I don't know and I believe no one knows...:)
@@slevinchannel7589 So would you be an example of a creation denier?
@@slevinchannel7589 so you suggest videos from three arrogant narcissists:
1 . Dave who pretends to be a professor
2. Larry Nelson who changed his name to Aron ra so he can be called the sun god.
3. Forrest valkai , a fake biologist who claims there’s 16 genders.
@@grainiac7824 yes he would be an example of a creation denier.
Wow "myths are more important than facts", that says everything, I honestly believe that anyone who would rather ignore the facts over a myth shouldn't have a degree in science at all
I'd like science to be more honest
@@jex-the-notebook-guy1002 And why would it be dishonest?
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 it's full of bs. anything marked with "it's science" is deemed fact
@@jex-the-notebook-guy1002 That's not an answer. How can you say it's not a fact?
anyone can be dishonest. including scientists and frauds
I'm embarrassed for her. It always fascinates me to hear people who have never read the Bible speak at length on it. Eugenie Carnac is a marvel.
One thing that this and other threads make clear is that, in general, scientists are far more familiar with the Bible than religious enthusiasts are with science. So, just who is speaking from a position of ignorance?
@@madgeordie4469 Sure they are ;)
@@ytcdc2 Perceptive of you to recognise the fact.
@@madgeordie4469 I see comprehension is not your strong suit.
@@ytcdc2 It would appear that mental acuity sure isn't yours.
Science is defined as 'the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them.'
confusing legend, myths and fiction literature - is it ok?
Good talk. Just remember -- evolution stopped at the neck for humans, and we're all equal, regardless of race. Evolution had zero influence over different races' average IQ in 100,000 years. This is definitely not a form of fashionable creationism.
It would be great if that were true, but recent science suggests it may not be, to the extent that it now seems almost beyond question that Homo Sapiens interbred with at least one and possibly two other humanoid competitors within the timeframe you specify.
Secondly there appears to be a clear difference in verbal and mathematical functional intelligence in favour of one racial group: Ashkenazy jews. 40% of this group are descended from just four “founding mothers” who lived in Europe a thousand years ago, which is a sufficiently recent genetic bottleneck to support a significant difference. Especially since the population was already unusually genetically isolated, by centuries of racial discrimination.
Furthermore, differential selection pressures as well as cultural evolution can be intensified after such a bottleneck. Hitler 's "final solution" was a form of differential selection, and it is ironic that it was the cream of Jewish physicists, driven from Germany, who were instrumental in deciding the end of WW2 so decisively, and whose scientific brilliance was the key enabling factor for initiating the Cold War, on both sides.
This population has outperformed other groups in the award of Nobel prizes by several orders of magnitude: forming 0.2% of the world population, they account for 22% of prizes.
I'm not comfortable with the use to which this information could be put, but that is a separate question from whether it is true.
Be that as it may, I think you would be well advised to refrain from making claims of the sort you do here, because it draws attention to an inconvenient discrepancy between what is desirable and what may in fact be true.
@@Gottenhimfella Two things: First, it's "Ashkenazi." Second, you might have missed the sarcasm in my post.
@@RJStockton This person (me) picked up the cynicism with no problem, thought it was quite good.
no neck, it's always a "bush" . you are right , evolution doesn't care about an IQ goal, it cares about survival of genetics
You're right. It doesn't have effect on race. Education, culture, bias, preparation, motivation are all factors known to influence IQ test and IQ in general
Critical thinking argument is great in every other context other than questioning Evolution.
Critical thinking should apply to ANY claim. Anybody who ever critically thinks about evolution realizes there is too much evidence to logically deny or dismiss it.
@@zachtastic625 Evolution is a far flung attempt to unseat a creator, it has for 80 plus years had the support of the justice system, the education system, and most importantly the financial support of the government. This is not the equivalent of facts. Please present to me a single "fact" of evolution that cannot be interpreted any other way.
@Robert Heintze I believe in a partial theory of evolution, micro evolution or adaptation. We see that occurring, what does not occur is one species changing into another species.
@Paul Dana So Paul please point me to the evidence that small changes over millions/thousands of generations result in a new and different species.
@Paul Dana No evidence! We call that a key vulnerability in your theory.
*Natural selection/Mutation*
Charles Darwin is hailed as a man of brilliance who unlocked the secrets of our world and gave us an explanation for the origins of life but what people fail to realise is that Charles Darwin’s theory has been utterly refuted and emphatically proved to be false; yet his legacy lives on.
Let us consider what Darwin actually observed - finches living on different islands feeding on different types of food having different beaks. What did he propose? That these finches had descended from a pair of flock of finches. In other words, he proposed that finches begat finches - that is exactly what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1.
It cannot be overemphasised that no one has ever observed one kind of plant or animal changing into another different kind. Darwin did not observe this, even though he proposed that it does happen. There are literally thousands of plant and animals kinds on the earth today, and these verify what the Bible indicates in Genesis 1 about animals and plants reproducing after their own kind.
Indeed, the Darwinian theory of evolution is purely hypothetical rafter than actual. It is based on “conjecture” and not direct evidence.
Out of all the millions of fossils found on Planet Earth, no intermediate/transitional fossils have ever been found.
What we DO OBSERVE in our world is “variation within kinds” which is exactly what the Bible teaches us; that creatures “bring forth after their kind.” [Genesis 1:24] Whether it be animals, or plants - they all bring forth after their “kind.”
We have for example the dog kind such as the wolf, the dingo, the coyote, the domestic dog which are all from the same kind - the dog kind or family.
We also have the cat kind such as: the lion, the tiger, the cheetah, the leopard, the domestic cat which are all from the same kind - the cat kind or family.
We observe great variation within these kinds/families but there are LIMITS to these variations due to a process called “genetic homeostasis” a term derived by the eminent biologist Ernst Mayr - Harvard University.
Genetic homeostasis is basically A limit to the genetic variability available in a species; there is only so much change that can happen within a species due to its genetic makeup.
Because of this problem of “genetic homeostasis” Darwinists desperately looked to find an alternative theory to support their belief and they found this in a man named Gregor Mendel who gave us the term “mutation.”
This term was eventually married to Darwin’s original conception which now stated that: “The mechanism of evolution is the natural selection not just of ordinary variations but of genetic mutations.”
Darwins’s original theory had been proved wrong. For example he held the belief that bears could turn into whales by natural selection as stated in the first edition of his book; but this was shown to be false because the genetic program or recipe for whales is not contained in the existing genetic makeup of bears. A genetic change is needed before one can change into the other and natural selection is not capable of initiating genetic change.
Physical characteristics are controlled by genes (or groups of genes acting in concert). Bisexual reproduction ensures that each new individual receives a 'new deal', since the genes of the parents are shuffled together and recombined like a pack of playing cards. Sometimes, the 'new hand' is very like the old one, as when a child strongly resembles one parent; sometimes it is very different. But in every case, the new deal can be drawn only from the existing pack, just as a hand at bridge must contain some hearts, or clubs, or diamonds or spades, no matter how much the pack is shuffled.
In terms of physical characteristics, what this means is that genetic recombination can give rise to variations that are within the range for each species: a finch with a beak a little bigger than before, or a cow that yields more milk than before. What it does not mean is that genetic variation of the ordinary kind is capable of explaining the appearance of entirely novel characteristics. It does not explain the appearance of a wing where before there was only an arm. For the genetic inheritance mechanism is merely one of reshuffling and recombination of characteristics already represented in what Dobzhansky called the 'gene pool' of that species.
This is the specific reason that Dutch tulip growers have never been able to achieve a black tulip or rose breeders a blue rose. There is no gene for black colouration in the gene pool of the tulip. And, sadly, there are no blue genes for the rose.
But now add “mutations” to the equation and all things are now apparently possible. Given enough time and many mutations.
Mutation is the only tool that evolutionists have available to account for the millions of species that exist in the world today. The interesting thing is that the vast majority of mutations that we encounter have proven to be non-beneficial and can actually be harmful, and not life enhancing as evolutionists believe.
Examples of these mutations include cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, phenylketonuria and color-blindness, among many others.
Harmful mutations can cause genetic disorders and even cancer. Far from mutation being a positive, enhancing tool, it is actually quite the opposite.
Further, all point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.
Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations that the theory demands.
Mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.
Further, mutations, even “so-called” beneficial ones, are going in the opposite direction for molecules-to-man evolution, which requires a gain of new genetic information, even though there may have been a beneficial outcome.
Yes, there are examples which show that there can be “beneficial outcomes” to mutations. However, these mutations can only alter “pre-existing” traits; they cannot result in the origin of “novel” traits necessary for molecules to man evolution.
For molecules-to-man evolutionary changes, the mutation needs to be beneficial AND cause a gain of NEW INFORMATION.
The small changes seen in species as they adapt to their environments and form new species through mutation are the result of LOSSES OF INFORMATION.
Darwinian evolution requires the addition of traits (such as forelimbs changing into wings, and scales turning into feathers in dinosaur-to-bird evolution), which requires the addition of NEW INFORMATION.
Speciation
Molecules-to-man evolution requires a net increase in novel genetic information, the addition of genes for new trait categories to a genome. Reproductive isolation and subsequent speciation results in a loss of genetic variability (alleles), converting a large gene pool into subgroups with smaller gene pools (i.e., “new species” with less ability to meet changes in their environment, restricted ability to explore new environments, and reduced prospects for long-term survival.
Speciation is moving in the wrong direction to support the evolutionary belief in upward changes between kinds, or molecules-to-man evolution.
Uncritical acceptance of evolution has so stunted scientific thinking that people give mutations god-like qualities. They act as if a cosmic ray striking a cell can cause a mutation that somehow assembles over 1500 DNA nucleo-tides into a brand new gene, regulators and all, that suddenly begins producing a brand-new protein responsible for a brand-new trait, raising the lucky mutated organism to the next higher limb on the evolutionary tree! NOTHING remotely like that has ever been observed, nor will it be!
Mutations are NOT genetic "script writers"; they are merely typographic alterations in a genetic script that has already been written. Typically, a mutation changes only one letter in a genetic sentence averaging 1,500 letters long. To make evolution happen - or even to make evolution a theory fit for scientific discussion - evolutionists desperately need some kind of genetic script writer to create novel genetic information, increasing the size of a genome and the depth of a gene pool.
Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, no ability to produce novel genetic information, and, hence, no ability to make evolution happen, at all. Yet molecules-to-man evolution requires phenomenal expansion of genetic information.
It would take thousands of mutations adding novel information to change simple cells into invertebrates, vertebrates, and mankind. The evolutionist's problem is with the fundamental nature of information itself. The information in a book, for example, cannot be reduced to nor derived from the properties of the ink and paper used to write it. Similarly, the information in the genetic code cannot be reduced to nor derived from the properties of matter or the allelic variations caused by mutations. Its message and meaning originated instead in the mind of its Maker, Jesus Christ, the Author of life (John 1:1-3). What we see in God's world agrees with what we read in God's Word.
[Sources: Dr. Monty White - Hasn’t Evolution Being Proven True?; Richard Milton - Shattering The Myths of Darwinism; Dr. Werner Gitt - In The Beginning Was Information; Dr. Terry Mortenson - Do Evolutionists Believe Darwin’s Ideas about Evolution?; Dr. Gary Parker - Is Speciation Evidence For Creation or Evolution?]
Watch "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin's Evolutionary Theory" if you're not to scared to explore the possibility that you are duped.
Nice copy-paste
Regarding the timeline of creation stated in Genesis 1 of the Bible, many people think that creation occurred within a 7 "earth-day" period. However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed. Because, what is a “day” on earth? Isn’t a "earth-day” the single revolution of the earth around its axis? (By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history. Additionally, every celestial body has a different length for its "day".) According to the Bible, the Earth was not "formed" until the 3rd day of creation. Prior to the 3rd day of creation, the earth was "without form and void". So, how could an "unformed" earth have rotated about its non-existent axis during the first two days of creation to provide a measure of time? Clearly, Universal Consciousness was using a different measure of time for a “day” during the “seven days of creation”. In other words, Universal Consciousness was not using an “earth-day” as a unit measure of time during creation. To think that Universal Consciousness would use an "earth-based time clock" to measure the creation of the universe is akin to the out-dated geocentric belief that the universe revolves around the earth. Even though Universal Consciousness is everywhere at all times, Universal Consciousness did not have to be "on" earth [Obviously, since the earth had not even been formed until the third "day" of creation.] and therefore not limited by an earthly time frame, when He created the heavens and the earth. (By the way, when was the clock invented? When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established? These are all relatively new innovations. So, how could they have measured time at the moment of creation.) Universal Consciousness is beyond heaven, earth ... and time.
_However, if one reads the actual text of the Bible carefully, it is very clear that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 are not referring to the assumed 24-hour earth- days with which we are all accustomed_
That's not clear at all. In fact, that only became something people thought once science had established that the earth was much older than previously thought.
_By the way, science has shown that the rotation of the earth has not been constant over earth's history_
That variation doesn't extend the amount of time you need to fix the genesis story. In fact, the earth's rotation was faster in the past, so it's much worse for creationists.
_To think that Universal Consciousness would use an "earth-based time clock"_
Well, it was written in an earth based book So that's not a very safe objection you have.
_When was the unit measure of time for a second, a minute, an hour, a 24-hour day established?_
Maybe this creator should have been more precise when describing creation?
_Universal Consciousness is beyond heaven, earth ... and time_
Then why use human units of time?????????
A careful and critical reading of the bible reveals it to be self contradictory and therefore cannot be true.
@@walkergarya True, but not even careful or critical is needed.
Wikipedia 2021, "The RNA world is a HYPOTHETICAL stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the HYPOTHESIS that posits the existence of this stage."
Wikipedia 2021, “A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the SCIENTIFC METHOD requires that one can TEST IT … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is NOT the same as a scientific theory.” Hypothesis are often referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated GUESS.
One of the reasons that RNA World is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that RNA World Hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. RNA World Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
(Note: Please disregard the all caps. They were included in a previous YT post for emphasis. Thank you and Best wishes.)
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G). And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciouness /intelligence. ...
*_"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes."_* (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
*_"Language: All digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_* (Wikipedia: Digital Data)
Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of all Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is no biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.
If science is limited to explaining the natural world through natural processes, it is severely limited in scope and application.
everything is natural, if it explains everything it's not very limited
@@neatlife8049 It explains very little. A conflagration of scientists were once asked by an invited evangelist "what percent of the world and universe does science understand" they bantered about single digits arriving at 3%, for ease of computations and a simple figure the evangelist suggest they use 5%, to which the large assembly of scientists agreed. Now asked the evangelist, is it possible that God exists in the 95% of the universe of which you know nothing? As you would expect, only a very muted, exasperated sigh.
@@TheGateKeeper001 This misses what you originally said that if science in principle can only explain the natural world that it is not explaining much. The natural world is the only world we know of and it encompass all we and the stars are made of - so if "that's all" science can explain than it's almost everything, isn't it?
@@neatlife8049 Science attempts to interpret the natural world and does so very superficially, based upon a failed paradigm (evolution). Otherwise I stand corrected, you are certainly correct.
@@TheGateKeeper001profoundly incorrect.
She says you can tell a myth by phrases such as "Once upon a time...", "In the beginning...", or " Long long ago in a galaxy far far away...". I'd say one more line falls into that logic, "Billions of years ago..."
We have evidence. You have Kent Hovind. We win.
@@walkergarya care to lay out all that evidence of all those transition fossils and abiogenesis event? Oh wait, there aren't enough transition fossils to make a case for evolution, and abiogenesis doesn't apply. Did I miss anything? Nope? OK then.
@@munkdaddy7758 Wrong again. There are millions of transitional fossils. Here are a handful.
Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's. The fossils are found with a variety of stone tools; this is the earliest human which we're sure used tools (Coyne, 2009).
Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).
Most fish-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.
Update: This group of fossils were thought to be roughly contemporary with the transition onto land. However, recently tracks of a four-footed animal were discovered in marine sediments firmly dated at 397 million years old (Niedzwiedzki et al, 2010). If that animal was a genuine tetrapod, then creatures like Tiktaalik may have been "late-surviving relics" exhibiting transitional features that actually evolved somewhat earlier.
In short, these are not the actual ancestors of modern land animals; but they are related to the actual ancestors, and so they do show us the sort of creature that evolved during the great move onto land.
Eusthenopteron,
Panderichthys,
Tiktaalik
© Nobu Tamura
Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).
Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).
Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).
Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 2008). Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.
Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).
Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).
Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms [i.e. the above animals] and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).
These creatures were related to the lungfish of their time, and almost certainly all had lungs themselves.
It would be a mistake to think that the first tetrapods moving on land needed limbs capable of bearing their full weight; legs sprawled to the side would be enough to move about with. One thing the above fossils seem to show is that legs first evolved for crawling over the bottom of the water; only later did their use on land become paramount.
________________________________________
Dinosaurs - birds
Most dinosaur-like at the top. Images and diagrams of the fossils here.
Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).
Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009). Precisely how closely related it is to the main line of bird evolution remains the subject of controversy (Xu et al, 2011).
Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.
Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).
Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).
Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.
@@walkergarya do you realize how many hundreds of billions of transition stages would be recorded for just ONE species, let alone across all of the zoological sphere of life? We wouldn't have room for anthills, let alone mountains or oceans!
@@munkdaddy7758 Given the rarity of an individual animal being preserved as a fossil and then being recovered for study, we have the fossils we can expect to have.
You demand a perfect record of every indivdual animal that lived and because we do not have that, you demand that we believe "god did it" with NO evidence.
You are a hypocrite.
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence/consciousness/mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific". Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter.
Are you going to drag out every single long refuted creatard claim? You really are tedious.
And that proves that the Bible is literally true, how?
If myths are lies, or untruths that represent the truth, why not just use the truth to do the same thing, because too many people take myths as truth. (such as religious cults) It would be OK if no one took the myths as truth, but as we can see, it just doesn't work that way in reality. I believe we should just stick with the truth, and leave myths out of it. They do much more harm than good.
I would say that myths make abstract ideas simpler to understand to your average man. The problem is when with the passage of time, myths are viewed as history. Then if a different culture and language adopt them and that is added to time's passage, eventually confusion reign.
The oldest known monotheist was an Egyptian, Akhenaten!
I wanna say: Wisecrack,
Hbomberguy, FTFE,
they all also cover Clima-Change-Denial (AND other c-theorys), so by all means: Be my guest.
At 52:43-53:00; yeah, and if you don't see this as a scientific possibility, then either you are imposing your own presuppositional biases onto the data, or you're just not up to date on your research. I would invite you to read the paper "Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures” by Pierre Y. Julien, Yongqiang Lan, and Guy Berthault, found here:
efficalis.com/sedimentology/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/EXPERIMENTS-ON-STRATIFICATION.pdf
There is no evidence for Noah's flood. What a dumbass lol hopefully you're smarter than you were 2 years ago.
(Note: Please disregard the all caps. They were included in a previous YT post for emphasis. Thank you and Best wishes.)
DNA code can be equated to a type of computer language. DNA code is more complex than regular computer language in that it is not binary (based on 0 and 1). It is quaternary (based on A T C G).
"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an INFORMATION SCIENCE. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its DIGITAL nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION - the genes that ENCODE proteins, which are the MOLECULAR MACHINES of life, and the GENE REGULATORY NETWORKS that specify the behaviour of the genes." (Source: Nature Journal, Nature com)
"Language: All DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful." (Wikipedia: Digital Data)
And, as with every known language in existence, confirmed through scientific experiment and observation, is the product of only one thing ... mind/ consciousness /intelligence
You have no faith in science.
There is no faith in science.
Science does not require faith.
Then don't call evolution, "science"
@@Rabbit.760 Evolution doesn't require faith. Allele frequency changes over time within populations. No faith required. It is observable.
@@kijul468 to say we share a common ancestor with anything does... it is not observable
Thank you.
The Hebrew god just is.
Yeah ?
Show pictures of your god.
If you want unbiased Dissection
of Religion and real non-hateful Disccusions,
i recommend 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'.
He will never hate on people... and never sell you s-it...
Show pictures of your first molecule that produced life.
@@grainiac7824 lol.
molecules ?
Why not nucleotides ?
(Note: Please disregard the all caps. They were included in a previous YT post for emphasis. Thank you and Best wishes.)
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology/worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
_The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000_
But that's irrelevant. Nobody believes proteins formed in a single step by chance. The mechanism involved is called natural selection, and that works much more efficiently than simply trying the same thing over and over.
_Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms_
(a) you don't need to say "random chance". Random or chance is sufficient.
(b) Abiogenesis hypothesises that the natural processes include natural selection, and that the sub units of life emerged successively. WHat you have described is an abiogenesis where the sub units emerge, essentially complete, in one step.
_Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia_
It's clear you know almost nothing of modern science. You're butchering everything you write about.
@@user-tu1co9xl1k Your creationism has the same scientific value as Flat Earth Geography.
@@user-tu1co9xl1k _Natural selection would select a subset from a set, so it won't eliminate the probability for creating that set_
What are you talking about? Who ever said that the "probability for creating that set" should be "eliminated"? What you have written is so confused, it can only mean you are trying to sound smarter than you are.
_The probability to fit all the basis in the most simple genome is zero_
What are you talking about? Do you mean "bases"? What probability is zero? How did you calculate that probability?
_More than that, nature creating information is impossible because information needs codes, abstractions and UPFRONT THINKING_
You obviously don't know what information is!
_So, you believe in things that are impossible and with probability zero_
So stupid.
@@user-tu1co9xl1k _what is the probability for fitting an exact specific sequence just by randomly changing the positions of these characters?_
I don't understand why you think that the random selection of a sequence of characters is analogous to evolution or abiogenesis. Where is the selection? Where is the chemistry part? Why did you choose 26 characters, when the genetic code is based around 64 codon triplets that correspond to 20 amino acids? Why do I have to select only one of the possible sequences, why can't I select for any one of them that does something interesting?
You see the problem? Every idiot creationist seems to miss the same obvious ideas every time they try to claim the probability for X or Y is "impossible". How about, instead of calling me an idiot, you do some thinking?
@@user-tu1co9xl1k I gave you the answer. Was it too complicated?
Well Academia which has as all religions also its eternal conflicts its partisan school's of diverse thoughts, and the contradiction of things like the dominant historical timeline which should of been dismissed or at least revised when in the dinosaur discoveries tissue skin hair etc which would totally destroy the billions and millions of years timeline. Also carbon dating can't measure but a few thousand years. And levels of strata just isn't a trust worthy scale.
Further evidence that you need to do some further reading, your position is dominated by your prejudged polemic, where do you get the sweeping dismissal of stratafication and sequencial deposition. Where is your homework?
Do you know that radiocarbon dating is just one of the more well known dating techniques? Also the precision of radiocarbon dating has improved over the last decade, with the use of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), which has pushed the useful limit of radiocarbon dating back to 45,000 years ago. Accuracy further improved, with modern contamination removal, pre-treatments . Obviously dates also have to be calibrated, to take into account the changes in carbon 14 in the atmosphere. But there are also, other radiometric dating methods, like using the uranium series, and potassium argon-dating. You could use luminescence dating, or electron spin resonance, this measures the levels of trapped electrons within a archaeological find (works particularly well for dating tooth enamel). All these methods use different ways of dating some are good for more recent specimens, others do well at dating deep time (really LONG ago). They overlap at certain points , this makes they even more useful.The scientists use which methods, are proven to work best, in the suspected time frame, as many as poss, and cross reference the results against other dating techniques. Then, use other techniques, like stratification of sediments. No ONE dating method is used , but as many as possible. It’s all about showing the evidence, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE .
@@budd2nd No Dating method is accurate. They are all based on assumptions
The Rayquaza King - assumptions are the beginning, then scientists design experiments to find out if those assumptions are correct or not. Only after rigorously testing, does anything within science become accepted, as a reliable diagnostic method.
budd2nd ummm how do you verify if a dating method is correct without knowing the date before hand🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day." Not the morning and the evening!
Fairy tales do not refute evidence based science.
@@walkergarya science falsely called does not refute, historical ,legal, spiritual , scientific truth that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures was Buried and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures 1Corinthians 15:3-4
@@walkergarya evolution is a fairy tale .a modern day myth that requires more faith than believing the truth.
@@christdiedforoursins1467 Biological Evolution is not a fairy tale, it is NOT "science falsely called", and the fair tale of your Jesus is refuted by over 100 FACTs where your gospesl contradict each other, contradict Roman practices, contradict Jewish practices or have no supporting evidence for the remarkable events described in your story book.
@@christdiedforoursins1467 Again with the fairytales. How can you pray to a zombie? User intelligence and brush up on some scientific facts, leave the myths and fairytales to children.
Oh my god that theory of yahweh conquering all of the gods in 7 days according to genesis is genius that makes so much sence why Jews would write that. Also gods dont write books in human handwriting gods write with god pens on golden paper.
Just to piggy back on what I stated earlier, a Creator God is not only demanded by the scriptures, but is a logical necessity based on the contingent nature of the physical universe.
Because the physical universe is contingent, it is not eternal. (Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of origin, cessation, or change, in effect, eternity means no past, present, or future; it is an eternal “now,” but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in creation, living, changing, and dying, ergo matter and energy are not eternal) Every physical (natural) entity is contingent and therefore has a cause, and because causal chains cannot be of infinite length, because that would be an effect without a cause, if you were able to follow the causal chain back to the very beginning where the very first physical entity was effected into being, it's cause HAD to be supernatural, since the “natural” was not yet in existence, something cannot come from nothing, something cannot “be” before it “is,” and nothing can create itself (not even God). The reality of the impossibility of infinite causal chains also refutes any notion of a “multiverse” that some have posited as an explanation of the eternality of the universe, and it also nullifies the question “where did God come from?” that some have posed when God is explained as the ultimate cause of the universe.
Others (like Stephen Hawking) have foolishly said that we cannot talk about the origins of the universe since time itself did not exist before the universe began to expand at the Big Bang, so we just cannot know. However, since time is the progression of sequential relationships between two or more contiguous events, if there was indeed a point when there was no such thing as time, but assuming the universe did exist in some previous form, be it as a singularity, a quantum vacuum, or whatever, then because there was no time, then there would be no progression from the universe’s previous condition from “A” where there was no time to, “B” where there is time. Hence, if there was a point when there was no time, then there never would be time unless some supernatural (outside of nature) force created it.
Contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings in the ultimate sense. Frederick Copelston once said, “If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not sheep. Therefore if you add up contingent entities, you are still left with contingent entities, and not an eternal one”: therefore there must exist a necessary, non-contingent, supernatural being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent, physical beings are derived (Hebrews 11:3).
In other words, no consistently well-thinking person can be an atheist.
"Because the physical universe is contingent, it is not eternal. "
And how do you know this? How do you know that whatever processes led to the singularity or big bang expansion are not eternal? Limiting them to the universe is silly because the universe didn't create itself or just poof out of nothing, it likely came from the expansion of a singularity of space-time and energy. Just because something timeless or eternal is required, does not mean it has to be a being. Time is an illusion and only exists in our physical universe, so if something exists outside of it, the laws of physics do not apply.
"it's cause HAD to be supernatural, since the “natural” was not yet in existence,"
That's a really bad assumption. Do you think that a singularity is super natural? Do you think a dimensional collision on the quantum level is super natural?
"The reality of the impossibility of infinite causal chains also refutes any notion of a “multiverse” that some have posited as an explanation of the eternality of the universe, and it also nullifies the question “where did God come from?” that some have posed when God is explained as the ultimate cause of the universe. "
This is false. Why would you say that a super complex being more complex than the universe itself, just happens to be there from nothing, yet a multiverse cannot just be there? What are you standards for figuring such? God is ASSUMED to be a cause of the universe, nobody actually knows the cause yet, so assuming is pointless.
"then there would be no progression from the universe’s previous condition from “A” where there was no time to, “B” where there is time. "
Um, that's exactly what the big bang is. Progression from a dense singularity to the universe as we know it today. Time is an illusion, it's just the movement of space-time distorted by gravity.
"Hence, if there was a point when there was no time, then there never would be time unless some supernatural (outside of nature) force created it."
That's a silly assumption. Why couldn't a timeless process that exists outside of space-time have started the big bang? Why are you hellbent on a BEING. It only moves the goalposts. And of course you finish by quoting a bible verse, more nonsense to add to your fire of futility. Keep making assumption after assumption about thinks we can't even study or understand yet.
@@Barcs
Response 1
You said: *”And how do you know this?”*
Until we can be shown any physical entity in the universe that is not contingent upon anything, but has the power of being within itself, then we are driven by observation to understand that all physical entities are contingent by nature. We also know this by reason; if something is NOT contingent, that is, it was never was caused to be, but simply was, then necessarily, it is eternal, and an eternal something is changeless since it is never losing any of the power of its being, nor is it gaining anything in the scope of its being, it is what it is, eternally. Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of beginning, cessation, or change, but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in origination, living, changing, and dying, ergo matter and energy are not eternal. Ergo, by nature, we KNOW that the universe is not eternal, neither does it have the power of being within itself - the is a formal truth, that is, it is true by definition.
You said: *”How do you know that whatever processes led to the singularity or big bang expansion are not eternal?”*
I have already addressed this; infinite causal chains do not exist in the natural realm. If you are speaking in the natural realm, then nothing, no entity, nor process of an entity are eternal given the nature of their existence. And even the very notion of a “process” demands contingency since mechanisms demand the existence of an agency responsible for those mechanisms, and every process has a cause and an effect; by definition then, neither physical entities nor the processes that they maintain can be eternal. To say otherwise is to demand the existence of infinite causal chains, which do not exist in the physical universe.
You said: *”it likely came from the expansion of a singularity of space-time and energy.”*
Demonstrably illogical. In his wacky book “The Grand Design,” Stephen Hawking stated that “We are a product of quantum fluctuations in the early universe,” and “Nobody made evolution. It arises as a natural and inescapable consequence of the laws of nature in the universe in which we find ourselves, which themselves are a natural and inescapable consequence of the completely random quantum fluctuation which caused the big bang, at which point the “laws” of causality break down so it is meaningless to inquire who or what caused that.” If he posits that the laws of nature are a consequence of the quantum fluctuation, then he is guilty of circular thinking because quantum fluctuations are a consequence of natural laws. For the laws of nature to be consequent to anything at all, then the law of causality must be in effect, but if this is where the law of causality breaks down, then there can be neither causes nor consequences of any kind. If the laws of nature are the inescapable consequences of completely random quantum fluctuations, then by what logic is he using to say that inescapable consequences arise from random events? Random events can only lead to contingent consequences but to be “inescapable” then the consequences cannot be contingent but rather they must be determinate. If the big bang was “caused” by “random quantum fluctuations,” then fluctuations in what? Before the big bang there existed neither matter, energy, space nor time, so by definition there could be no fluctuations in any of these entities. If you claim there was something of a material nature “there” before the big bang, then we are no longer talking about the ultimate origin of the universe. On page 180 of the same book, Hawking said “because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” The notion that the law of gravity - a law of nature - explains the existence of the universe is self-contradictory since according to the scientific definition of a law of nature as a description of the behavior of the natural universe, a law of nature must then depend for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature that it purports to describe, so his statement is impossible by definition. In other words, gravity cannot exist without space, time, and matter, but those are the very things that he is suggesting that gravity created. To suggest that gravity created space, time, and matter is akin to claiming that you are your own father.
Therefore we see that any natural explanation to the existence of the natural realm is a viciously circular argument.
@@Barcs
Response 2
You said: *”Just because something timeless or eternal is required, does not mean it has to be a being.”*
So, you are suggesting that the eternal physical universe is non-being, ergo, non existent?
You said: *”Time is an illusion and only exists in our physical universe”*
How do you know? Have you been outside of this universe to see if time doesn’t exist there? What would “outside of the universe” even look like?
You said: *”so if something exists outside of it, the laws of physics do not apply.”*
Again, how do you know? Are scientists in the habit of making assertions that have no means of demonstration? I would actually agree with this assertion, but I would add that the only thing that stands outside of this universe that the laws of physics do not apply, is God. You see, if something exists outside of the laws of nature, then by definition, we have now entered the realm of the supernatural, and science is not in the business of the supernatural; this has now become a question of religion.
You said: *”That's a really bad assumption.”*
Actually, you already made the same assumption - previously, you stated that “if something exists outside of it (the physical universe), the laws of physics do not apply,” so, by definition, we are talking about the supernatural.
You said: *”Do you think that a singularity is super natural?”*
No, because the singularity didn’t exist, we’ve already demonstrated that.
You said: *”Do you think a dimensional collision on the quantum level is super natural?”*
If it is something that can be observed, and is repeatable by testing in a laboratory, then it’s probably not supernatural, but men like Hawking have never demonstrated the eternality of anything in the physical realm, and men like him never will.
You said: *”Why would you say that a super complex being more complex than the universe itself, just happens to be there from nothing, yet a multiverse cannot just be there?”*
Because the physical universe is demonstrated to be contingent, God is not.
You said: *”God is ASSUMED to be a cause of the universe, nobody actually knows the cause yet, so assuming is pointless.”*
No, God is not “assumed” to be the cause of the universe, He has declared to us that He is, and his sovereignty over all that is demonstrates His ownership of it. To claim that “nobody actually knows the cause yet” is merely a declaration of your presupposition, but it does not take into account the historical accounts of those things about which science is impotent to demonstrate. You see, science is a great tool for many things, but it is impotent at demonstrating historical events. For instance, if you ignore all of the work of historians, there is no way to use strictly empirical science to demonstrate that George Washington was the first president of the USA. Science cannot demonstrate one-time historical events; as it is with George Washington, so it is with cosmogony.
You said: *”Um, that's exactly what the big bang is.”*
Then you have just demonstrated the impossibility of the big bang. If there is no such things as sequential interactions between two or more contiguous events, then there never would be, that is, unless something outside has caused it. So, what outside force was the prime mover that instigated the creation of time, force, action, space, and matter?
You said: *”Why couldn't a timeless process that exists outside of space-time have started the big bang?”*
Timeless processes don’t exist. It’s a contradiction in terms - if something is a process, then it is a progression of sequential relationships between two or more contiguous events, if there is no such thing as a progression of sequential relationships between two or more contiguous events, then there is no process.
You said: *”Why are you hellbent on a BEING.”*
Because God told us how it happened, therefore to invent illogical scenarios that can never be scientifically demonstrated in order to try to use natural means to explain the existence of the natural realm is not only a viciously circular argument, but it is rather like the man who breathes out air as he speaks in order to talk about why air doesn’t exist.
You said: *”And of course you finish by quoting a bible verse, more nonsense to add to your fire of futility.”*
It is only futile to you because you are not a student of history. We know that the Bible is true because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, breathed out by the Holy Spirit, and written down by eye witnesses and scholars who interviewed eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses who could have easily disproved their claims should they have been false. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies (whose fulfillments can be researched in history), and claimed that their writings are divine rather than human in origin. Those writings were proven true at that time by the performing of many signs and miracles in the presence of many witnesses which served as confirmation that what these men spoke came from God. These writings were then faithfully passed down through succeeding generations whose accuracy of transmission is well demonstrated in existing manuscripts through the science of textual criticism (2 Peter 1:16-21).
You said: *”Keep making assumption after assumption about thinks we can't even study or understand yet.”*
You JUST explained godless scientists.
@@Barcs
Well, you've clearly drunk the koolaid. Have a nice day.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Wow, nice ad hominem. Clearly you got schooled.
52:00 we should argue these topics in school, it would be a great thing for everyone
Part of me agrees, because it would demonstrate how rational thinking can rule out creationist liars, but why waste time teaching a controversy that isn't even a controversy, only supported by religious fundies.
@@Barcs Belief in PURE rationality, is ITSELF irrational, mankind is NOT RATIONAL, humans RATIONALISE!
Your belief is pure SUPERSTITION, based in left-brain imbalance!
It's a testimony to your IGNORANCE of the functions of your own faculties.
@@jamestcatcato7132 Da fuck are you babbling about? LOL @ your silly projection.
Part of me agrees as well but then the cry baby evolutionist will get upset and need a physics lesson, then religion will get blamed again
@@Rabbit.760 - Evolutionists need a physics lesson? Are you for real?
How many in this audience have ever tried to grapple with Creationist explanations of the data themselves? And how many are content to only ever borrow the simplistic criticisms of others? (For instance, an anthropologist who makes sweeping geological statements.) Why? Because the psychological filter that Dr Scott mentioned (regarding values, ideology and identification) affect those who believe in Evolution too. Perhaps more so than they affect Creationists, since it is usually harder to take an opinion against the majority view.
Except creationism is not based on science, but rather based on disproven claims of pseudo science.
So there can only be ideology here. Not facts. All facts creationism claims for its own must be understood otherwise since they cannot logically rest on the disproven
@@ozowen5961 Creationism, as I understand it, is partly based on science and partly based on the Bible. Not that I'm saying that Creationism is "scientific." It is not, strictly speaking. Creationism is not absolutely falsifiable like hard science. It can only be disproven "beyond reasonable doubt."
But, as I see it, this is exactly the same for Evolution. Evolution is not falsifiable. No-one can prove that we didn't evolve. No amount of highly contradictory data can falsify it.
Galaxies seem to rotate too fast? Just postulate a completely new, completely strange form of matter. Universe expanding ever more rapidly? Just postulate a completely new, completely strange form energy. Negligible intermediate forms? Just postulate Punctuated Equilibrium. Can't think of a possible way Absolute Nothing can become Absolutely Everything? Just say "Science will find the answer - that's what Science does; that's how it works." It's unfalsifiable.
The whole naturalistic explanation for the origin of all things is unfalsifiable. Therefore it is not science. It is just as much "not science" as Creationism. However, it may be more plausible and we can use science to check that.
Evolution USES science to show it's plausibility, but using science is very different from BEING science. For example, Astrology also uses science (to know the current position of the planets against the stars) - does that make Astrology science? No.
Is Astrology implausible? Yes - beyond reasonable doubt. Is Creation implausible? Most of the Academy think so but that doesn't make them right. And I disagree. Is Evolution implausible? I believe so but you don't agree. Are any of these - Astrology, Evolution, Creation science in and of themselves? I say clearly not.
@@wallabea9750
" It can only be disproven "beyond reasonable doubt."
The young Earth is not possible, neither is the supposed global flood. And neither is special creation of "kinds". These are simply junked.
"Evolution is not falsifiable. No-one can prove that we didn't evolve. "
Incorrect. Find a pre Cambrian rabbit. Easily done.
Find a modern human genome pre A. Afarensis.
Show how ERV's not only have zone preferences (Hot spots) but how they always go to the same specific spot on a genome.
"Galaxies seem to rotate too fast? Just postulate a completely new, completely strange form of matter. "
And then research and test to see if that postulation is possible. We already know there are variations aplenty in the subatomic world, of particles that will not interact in all sorts of ways with other particles and forces.
"Negligible intermediate forms? Just postulate Punctuated Equilibrium. "
And then show it to be correct. It is a functioning part of the process. And Gould himself testified that the lack of transitionals were an issue only in some lineages.
" that's what Science does; that's how it works." It's unfalsifiable. "
Rubbish. If you do a strawman representation like that- then you can jump to that false conclusion.
"Evolution USES science to show it's plausibility, but using science is very different from BEING science"
Evolution via speciation, via ring species, via observed mutations, via trait appearances in the fossil record, via genomic records all speak only to evolution. There is no alternative explanation for what is observed. None.
"For example, Astrology also uses science..."
No it does not. Astrology has no idea where the stars actually are in relation to the planets. Many may no longer exist.
"It is just as much "not science" as Creationism."
LOL. Creationism has no basis in evidence. It starts, Bible first and tries to cram evidence to fit it, and when it can't it throws hands in the air and says "God will sort it out" and hopes no one asks again.
" Is Evolution implausible? I believe so but you don't agree. "
Your agreement is not needed. It has predictive powers, it leads to applied sciences and it is the unifying theory of biology.
Creationism is.... well, like Astrology- junk pseudo science
@@ozowen5961 I may be wrong but my understanding is that lots of anomalies are found in the fossil record and they are ignored. e.g. the Paluxy River footprints. If a rabbit was found in the pre-Cambrian there is no way that would be taken as falsifying Evolution! Same with everything else. Only "in theory" is Evolution is falsifiable, not in practice. I think you're kidding yourself on that crucial point.
Also, please let me correct a possible misunderstanding. What I actually wrote was,
"Can't think of a possible way Absolute Nothing can become Absolutely Everything? Just say "Science will find the answer - that's what Science does; that's how it works."
It's not me saying this. I don't say that Science will find an answer to how Absolute Nothing can become Absolutely Everything. I don't say "Science will find an answer (to everything); that's what science does; that how it works." This is the kind of thing Evolutionists say. Because they conflate Evolution and Science.
What I think is that while Science properly belongs to the study of the here and now, it can help a lot to decide between the plausibility of Evolution versus the plausibility of Creation.
Now I understand you think the plausibility score is 100% vs 0% respectively - and I can cope with that. But when you continue to conflate science and evolutionary theory, and we can't get past that, I don't see much point continuing the conversation.
@@wallabea9750
"Genes and their proteins are so complicated that it's practically inconceivable to me that a mutation could EVER be beneficial."
One of your ancestors caught a viral infection, a retro viral infection. The virus was switched off and embedded in the genome. Part of it now serves as the dna for placental growth. You literally owe your birth, in part, to an ancient viral marker. An addition to the genome.
With all the variations in DNA and all the different possibilities... i can't say for certain that things can't evolve, but it doesn't disprove the lord. It's very likely a lie, and only different varieties of the same species will come forth, but if it is true... it does nothing but show more glory to god. He knew what his equations, and his work would bring forth. His knowledge is infinite, you can't even begin to wrap your heads around the intelligence he has. He is all knowing, he is all powerful, and he can certainly build things to change, adapt, evolve, or otherwise!
Evolution does not disprove god. It simply shows how he built us in his image, in that we love variety just as much as he! Amen!
lliterally every instance of god that was ever written about contradicts evolution...
and if you want to give huim credit for it then prove he had any influence in it
I am actually shocked by the number of so-called learned persons who actually decide to read a Bible, even if it is just the first book and actually believe that their understanding of the ‘story’ is so complete that they can tell us what the authors meant to convey. The moral of the Adam & Eve narrative is so frequently and totally missed I find it ruins the credibility of the persons using it in a presentation. The message or moral taught is not that Adam and Eve were disobedient and broke God’s rule. The moral of the story is to REPENT! Adam and Eve lied and denied and shifted blame and HID FROM GOD (HELL) but, never begged His forgiveness. It is a moral repeated throughout the Bible. David, king of the Jews David, coveted his neighbors wife and sent her husband to the front battle of the war to be killed. Yet God made him the King of the chosen. I think having an affair with his neighbor’s wife then having him sent to be killed is a bit more egregious than eating the wrong fruit. David however, repented big-time and was forgiven.
I think the saying goes: “a man who repents of a thoughtless act is better loved than one who never committed one.”
And btw, science is a religion. What the holy call faith science calls theory. Neither has evidence to support the claims. (Including Darwin)
Jester Infester for your last point, there is much evidence to support evolution and logically thinking evidence must be true if there is evidence for it but none other than the Bible for creationism
Joseph Shipman You’re not thinking straight. Science uses faith to accept the ‘THEORY” of evolution. Darwin’s theory was about the evolution of species not the creation of life. Nor does Darwin state nor imply that life EVOLVED into being, he merely shows how the diversity of life was a causal response to environmental change over time. He new he had a problem in his thinking because their is no evidence in the fossil record or anywhere else that cats evolved from chickens the changes never leave the primary specie. Nowhere in our experiences of life on earth or our observations of the Universe have we found something come from nothing. Everything we experience has a cause. To take a simple Theory (not a fact by the way, there is no proof life evolved science has faith it did) and apply it to all life on earth is Sciences biggest mistake. We know now that our universe had a beginning and the something that caused that beginning also caused life. Life evolved into species. Single cell life possess such complexity they could not have ‘evolved’ from non-life. The first cell would have to have the ability to replicate itself, the ability to propel itself, the ability to adapt such complexities that could not have evolved because the cell would have died lacking any one of just the three qualities I mention. And, by the way, Darwin new he didn’t have the evidence to support the claim.
Jester Infester I don’t feel like arguing rn but you need to listen to this new Revenge of the Dreamers album and Erys
Jester Infester do you understand that a theory is the highest class of scientific certainty that we can have. I have a theory that if I drop my phone right now, it will fall to the floor. I don’t know for a fact that it will happen, but I know it’s happened before and so I can develop a theory that it will most likely happen. This is the same situation with things like the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. We have overwhelming evidence for both, so we form the theory, but we don’t pretend to know for a fact that they’ve happened/happen, which is why we call it a theory. Creationists like you pretend to know everything, scientists don’t pretend to know everything, we just don’t go “ I don’t understand this, therefore god”
Why are dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? Where are the transition speecies of dinosaurs? Why are dinosaur bones all located in a way evidencing fossilizing at the same time? If dinosaurs are millions of years old why do we still find soft tissue?
Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible. Birds are the transitional species LOL. Bones are absolutely not shown to be fossilized at the same time. Soft tissue is not found, fragments of blood cells can be preserved in rock thanks to the iron in the blood.
@@billy9144 job 40:15-19.
Birds are warm blooded and dinosaurs were cold blooded how can that be? Its an entirely different core. Weird that you have an answer when the evolutionists that discovered this over and over and over and over again. Dozens of times at a near 100% rate. They werent able to provide an explanation. So i doubt yours is correct. Also it wasnt fragments. It was intact.
@MartialVidz We don't care about your bible and your so called "truth". You believe, we're thinking :)
Myth: transitionals from one animal to another.
You spelled fact wrong.
Peter Richardson
Show you're fact. You have nothing. Fake whale skulls and fake embryo drawings. You're a joke pal.
Edit: finished
@Paul Dana Havr you ever heard that song by "Weird" Al Yankovic called "Everything you know is wrong"? Pretty sure he wrote it for you.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Pretty sure, you're an idiot.
"Genesis is a powerful myth". "Its not meant to be taken literally" JESUS SAID: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt 19:4-6
Mark 10:5-9 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning OF THE CREATION God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." JESUS WOULD NOT LIE else he would have sinned and the wages of SIN is DEATH. ...and He would have failed to rise from the dead.
Tell an evangelical it's not literal. LOL.
Perhaps Jesus was just referring to Genesis in a literary way rather than literal.
Jesus wasn't a scientist as was also freaky bamboozled by the mythology of Genesis.
Religious naturalism? That's like Hindu baptism... It doesn't exist.
Shinto and Buddhism are basically religious naturalism.
@@Barcs
I guess you're right, my presuppositions always force my thinking to relate "religion" with "Christianity," and that's just not true, for even atheists can do things "religiously." I suppose it would have been more correct if I had stated that it is impossible to be both a Christian and a naturalist, for the one necessarily contradicts the other, and we know this given Jesus's position on the book of Genesis as a historical narrative.
@@lawrencestanley8989 I don't mean to be THAT GUY but Christian atheists exist, they just don't interpret the bible as literal and ignore the super natural claims in the bible and focus exclusively on teaching of Jesus specifically.
@@Barcs
You said: *"Christian atheists exist"*
Not according to what constitutes a Christian, no they don't. A Christian literally means "Christ's ones," those that follow Christ. Those that follow Christ recognize that He is God and worship Him, therefore no Christian (if he actually IS a Christian) can at the same time choose not to worship God. Simply saying that one is a "Christian atheist" doesn't make it so - I can sit in a garage and blow smoke, but that doesn't make me a car, no matter how much I may want to identify myself as one. There is an objective standard against which the genuineness of a Christian is judged, and that is the Bible, and no one who claims to be an atheist can also be found a Christian. Jesus taught that He is God, therefore no one who claims to be an atheist can also claim to "focus exclusively on the teachings of Jesus specifically."
@@lawrencestanley8989
Christian noun
Chris·tian | \ ˈkris-chən , ˈkrish-\
Definition of Christian (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : *one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
It's a real thing, it is following the teachings of Jesus Christ, despite not thinking he was a god. It's not that crazy of a concept, and they fit the definition of Christian (which actually translates to Christ-like, if you want to be technical).
Jesus DID NOT teach that he was God. That was Paul and others who said that. Christian atheists don't take the bible literally, they basically treat God as a metaphor and follow what Jesus taught about morality and treating other people.
29:44 is brilliant.
Great talk. Science is poor myth. Science is not tied to one culture. Science is truth without certainty.
And Creationism is a lie with certainty. Or a lie disguised as the truth.
😶
Faith is also Truth without certainty. Hebrews defines it that way.
Now as for religion the world over has been given a western European version of a ancient Afrasian (East African) language, culture, lineage. Which cleverly academia blurs the true nature of the history of Egypt Israel even Syria the heart of Canaan and Hittite, Mesopotamia and actually from where the Sumerian originate verses the majority of mesothelioma migration from the south.
Modern western theology is grossly deficient in teaching or anything relevant to the narrative or cultural nuances connected with a Afrasian people. Bottom line they were all Canaan in Canaan including Israel different clans (fathers) tribe's but same root.
Today's Jews are not the ancient people and this is consistent of all the transplants in mid east Turkish, Mongolian, khazarian, western European then mixed with indigenous blood and the forgotten indigenous black and brown called Bedouin, Arab, Yemenite, Flasha, so first we need the foundation of facts reality actual history not the mythical Christopher Columbus story. The mythical British nobility story all the layer's of distortion would have to first be undone creationism and evolution.
And science and religions inability to say "I DON'T KNOW".
Nah
You claim science is unable to admit "I DON'T KNOW". I disagree, scientific exploration is based on what is not known. and seeking to clear the fog of ignorance by observation & enquiry.
Scientists I have known personally are far more intrested in what they don't know than what is already established. I suggest that you have a distorted polemic.
Macro-evolution has never been observed. Can anyone tell me any other supposedly "scientific" theory in which an imaginary faith-based process which has never been observed is relied on 100%? I've never seen any other "scientific" theory like that.
Of course it has not been “observed”, it takes thousands and thousands if not millions of years for one species to evolve into another. The change in species and evolution has been proven through the fossil record as well as DNA.
But I guess it’s just so much simpler for you morons to believe that man was formed out of a ball of mud, woman from his rib, they talk to a talking snake etc., etc.
It has the same veracity as the expanding universe, gravity or aerodynamics.
It is a testable, observable and applied theory.
If you get your science from creationist sources, then you do not get science.
@@ozowen It's interesting you made that comparison because the expanding universe and the theory of gravity are also provably false.
@@lightbeforethetunnel
Er, no they are not.
Feel free to explain yourself.
@@lightbeforethetunnel
OK, so no actual justification for your ambit assertion?
Got it.
I don''t think many people really believe in creationism .....?
Unfortunately, many do.
You'd be surprised. In my county (USA) 30-40% of the population believes in the literal version of genesis over evolution. They have become a cult that spreads lies and disinformation that tricks young kids into thinking science is some massive hoax and their religious beliefs are absolute truth. It's sad, but kids are abused badly here in that way and learn to reject logic, science & critical thinking from a young age.
@@eddyeldridge7427 Wow it is UNFORTUNATE to you? If you believe in no after life and no purpose on earth why indeed is ANYTHING "unfortunate"? Don't worry about us. If we're wrong all we have to worry about is we lived a life trying to love and honor others and God. If you're wrong... well...
@@grainiac7824
Considering how self centered you are, I have trouble feeling empathy for your kind, anymore. Its unfortunate because your kind makes the rest of us suffer in the only life we get because you think this life is to be treated as a doormat for a second one that isn't coming.
Also, you should learn what a false dichotomy is. Its MUCH worse, if you're wrong than if we are.
I can't listen to a person who thinks that facts are not important
She is making a comparison to theories... facts are a dime a dozen...
i don't think she said that. listen to her again
Did you just listen to the first five minutes, make this vacuous comment, and turn off the video?
She is saying that in science, facts alone are boring as they possess no explanatory power. Theories, on the other hand, explain these facts. Theories are overarching explanatory models which unify these facts together.
The bottom line is so simple a 6th grader could understand it: If the religion of evolutionism were true then it would have been obvious even in Charlie's day and he even said as much in On Origins, and I quote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case”, unquote, Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
If natural processes could produce not only the entire known Universe, but everything in between including us, then it would be so easy to reproduce these miraculous events even in the primitive laboratory conditions of the mid-19th century, that the aforementioned 6th grader could do it by simply adding some chemicals together and POOF! Life! But as we know it just isn't so. Now, if you take into account that even with the huge advancements in experimental science since Darwin's time, creating a laboratory so advanced it would scare him - it still can't be done. Plain and painfully simple...
Arguing with Ignorance ::
Her definition of science includes limitations such as not appealing to the supernatural and superstition, explaining the natural world by natural constructs and verifiable testing, the process to letting go of theories proven wrong.
If you got a flying spaghetti monster or sky god, just spell it out for rebuttal. Otherwise quit trolling.
Well first you have to understand that Charles Darwin wasn't right on everything he said. The science community does not refer to Charles as a God that we should take all his words as truth. What the science community has done however is expand on the experiments of Darwin and come to better conclusions about evolution. Unfortunately for Charles, he did not live long enough to see evidence of complex organs existing without numerous slight modifications. Meaning we have already discovered this and his theory has already been absolutely broken down.
The problem with what you think about these natural processes is that you think it is a simple process. It is not easy to replicate the entire process of evolution because it has taken millions of years of accidents and processes to occur. But back to what you said about life, scientists have already been able to replicate the process of the creation of life. Scientists have already created artificial life from scratch in the form of bacteria. Bacteria is widely accepted as part of the beginnings of evolution and it is simply now up to you as to whether or not you also accept that bacteria is life. Just understand that creating artificial life is progressively becoming easier, but there are limits to the research as creating life that can reproduce on its own or life that has sentience is a problem of lack of technology and more importantly a concern of morality. Think about that before suggesting scientists start making dogs and cows or something.
@@bills3245 You're full of crap if you think anybody has even came even remotely close to "replicating life" as you put it. If you believe that you better do some more research. Miller and Urey managed to make a few amino acids. Big deal. And nobody has done any better in what? over 6 decades? Stop believing the propaganda and do some unbiased research and find out for yourself just how ridiculous it is to entertain this fairy tale of a theory. And evolutionists DO worship Darwin. Evoluionism is based on faith simply because that's all it has going for it. And if nobody worships Darwin, then why is he buried in Westminster Abbey along with real scientists like Isaac Newton (which is a bad joke and an insult to the great scientist and creationist I might add). Charlie Darwin was an incestuous, plagiaristic, racist who had less education than a modern day 6th grader in a day when all you had to be to be a "scientist" was wealthy. He's also directly responsible for the murders of millions of innocent men, women, and children, and condoning evilutionism is tantamount to pissing on the graves of our fallen heroes who died fighting agsinst the bullshit fairy tale. Not a very good legacy for such a "great" man is it? Now go brag to your friends and family about those attributes of your belief system...
@@ForeverBleedinGreen provide evidence for your hypothesis
Most things are obvious… in retrospect. That’s why novel testable predictions are important in science.
17:08 / 1:12:52 Graven images did you do any research? At all I can name 2 of the bat Christmas tree easter bunny you might not think this but I doubt they thought so back then ether Christians worldwide think Christmas is a christian holiday when all you have to do is look at the history of these holidays to see they were taken from pagan festivals and converted to Christianity but is still pagan you kept the tree or the bunny just look what easter stands for when you take a way the cute little bunny that gives kids chocolate eggs it was a festival for a goddess called Astarte it goes like this a hare give birth to an egg the egg hatches the bird that comes out of the egg flies into the sky burst into flames then Astarte is reborn and in the bible it says this Astarte is an enemy of god so when you put this forward it means we do still put graven images before god so you can't say that we don't do this no more
graven images were carved out of wood, stone, or precious metal to represent specific deities worshipped by other tribal gods. This is not the same as a tree or a bunny, neither or which represent specific gods nor are they worshipped. The commandments were about priority: the Hebrew god was "jealous" and required his people to prioritize him over other local gods they might encounter.
Truth without certainty 😆, while she quickly says we came from primordial soup and it's been scientifically proven 😁 Even though macro evolution has never been observed or demonstrated.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
@@Zanta100 speciation is just adaptation not a different kind😁
@@nealswanson8684 moving goalpost....
macroevolution is defined as a change in species
so pls define "kind" in a working way....
@@Zanta100 if you want to believe you came from a rock that's cool😆
@@nealswanson8684 so you cant define it
what a shock....