How do you get something from nothing? Please explain? Without something, it wouldn't exist. A first grader could understand it. If anything, you are the one being incredulous.
So there was this magical primordial soup and some critter that lived in it decided it wanted to crawl out and begin living on land. What was this critter? If it emerged by itself, how did it reproduce? Unless it was a male and female critter that decided to abandon the soup at the same time, there's no way for any species to survive all alone. Evolution seems like glorified morphing. I'd love for someone to tell me exactly what emerged from that soup and in what order. And how it reproduced.
Still way more realistic and probable than any religion ever lol. It seems like we’re on the right track with evolution , we just have a lot to figure out. And a simple google search would explain different theory’s that make sense on how they managed to make their way out of the water after all that time.
The whole point of evolution is an organism reacting to its environment. Genetic mutation can occur in asexual cells which is why it took so long for those cells to become a real animal. It’s not a Pokémon evolution where the animal suddenly changes, it’s minor changes over the course of thousands to millions of years. Look up Galapagos Finches and you’ll see what I’m talking about as my links always get deleted
@@achimpanzee9210 All I want to know is what creatures were before finches then? Before they were birds, what were they? Everything I've seen looks more like morphing, not changing from an asexual plankton to something that began to crawl and breathe on land to something that decided to change its own skin, grow feathers and fly. Regardless of how much time you give them.
@@yamnjam the blue-back grassquit Volatinia jacarina is a direct ancestor to Galapagos Finches but if you want to get even further then you can look at theropods. The Finches when reaching the Galápagos Islands specifically evolved 2 million years ago and diversified from there on.
@@yamnjam also the ancestor to all dinosaurs which were the ancestors of Finches is Thecodontia. A group of reptiles that flourished in the Triassic period which would later evolve into the dinosaurs, pterosaurs and crocodiles.
This man shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how gene replication works and how mistakes in transcribing the information leads to mutations. Keep in mind deletion of genes is only one of four types of genetic mutation, the others being translocation, redundant copies, and insertion.
@@NyanNyanNyanNyanNyanNyanNyanN this person gave actual reason as to why the guy in the video is wrong but you just say excuses three times. Obviously your reasoning is concrete
@@achimpanzee9210 you mean to tell me from a dead universe there can form life and intelligence by itself? And dna and genetic code all to form by its f**king self? What kind of world do we live in bro
True what does that prove? Doesn't really help in evolution case anyways since evolution basically means transmogrification of species like land fish to bird. New coding is scientifically impossible without future dna splicing
We don't know therefore my preferred explanation for which there is no evidence is correct. That's called an argument from ignorance, it's a logical fallacy. Which means that the argument is invalid as that is the entire argument.
1913 wasn't a very good year. 1913 gave us the income tax, the 16th amendment and the IRS. -- Ron Paul A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. -- Ron Paul All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. -- Ron Paul Another term for preventive war is aggressive war - starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us. That is not part of the American tradition. -- Ron Paul As recent as the year 2000 we won elections by saying we shouldn't be the policemen of the world, and that we should not be nation building. And its time we got those values back into this country. -- Ron Paul Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces. -- Ron Paul Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened. -- Ron Paul Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. -- Ron Paul Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion way from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. -- Ron Paul Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. -- Ron Paul Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts. -- Ron Paul Have you noticed the debt is exploding? And it's not all because of Medicare. -- Ron Paul Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. -- Ron Paul How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution. -- Ron Paul I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card. -- Ron Paul I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. -- Ron Paul I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest. -- Ron Paul I will always vote what I have promised, and always vote the Constitution, as well as I will not vote for one single penny that isn't paid for, because debt is the monster, debt is what's going to eat us up and that is why our economy is on the brink. -- Ron Paul If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live. -- Ron Paul In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. -- Ron Paul Just think of what Woodrow Wilson stood for: he stood for world government. He wanted an early United Nations, League of Nations. But it was the conservatives, Republicans, that stood up against him. -- Ron Paul Justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense. -- Ron Paul Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense. -- Ron Paul Of course I've already taken a very modest position on the monetary system, I do take the position that we should just end the Fed. -- Ron Paul Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy. -- Ron Paul Prices are going up. Unemployment is continue to go up. And we have not had the necessary correction for the financial bubble created by our Federal Reserve system. -- Ron Paul Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. -- Ron Paul The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. -- Ron Paul The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. -- Ron Paul The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. ---- Ron Paul There is nothing wrong with describing Conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained. -- Ron Paul There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it. -- Ron Paul There's nothing wrong with being a Conservative and coming up with a Conservative believe in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and we don't go to war so carelessly. -- Ron Paul Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. -- Ron Paul To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to conserve our Constitution. -- Ron Paul War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. -- Ron Paul What is not conservative about saying, 'Don't go to war unless we go to war properly with a full declaration of war and no other way?' -- Ron Paul When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads. -- Ron Paul When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans. -- Ron Paul You don't have freedom because you are a hyphenated American; you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected. -- Ron Paul You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws. -- Ron Paul Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -- Alan Kay Premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it)in programming. -- Donald Knuth Lisp has jokingly been called "the most intelligent way to misuse a computer". I think that description is a great compliment because it transmits the full flavor of liberation: it has assisted a number of our most gifted fellow humans in thinking previously impossible thoughts. -- Edsger Dijkstra, CACM, 15:10 Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. -- Mark Twain What Paul does, and does very well, is to take ideas and concepts that are beautiful in the abstract, and brings them down to a real world level. That's a rare talent to find in writing these days. -- Jeff "hemos" Bates, Director, OSDN; Co-evolver, Slashdot Since programmers create programs out of nothing, imagination is our only limitation. Thus, in the world of programming, the hero is the one who has great vision. Paul Graham is one of our contemporary heroes. He has the ability to embrace the vision, and to express it plainly. His works are my favorites, especially the ones describing language design. He explains secrets of programming, languages, and human nature that can only be learned from the hacker experience. This book shows you his great vision, and tells you the truth about the nature of hacking. -- Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto, creator of Ruby To follow the path: look to the master, follow the master, walk with the master, see through the master, become the master. -- Modern zen Poem No problem should ever have to be solved twice. -- Eric S. Raymond, How to become a hacker Attitude is no substitute for competence. -- Eric S. Raymond, How to become a hacker It is said that the real winner is the one who lives in today but ableto see tomorrow. -- Juan Meng, Reviewing "The future of ideas" by Lawrence Lessig Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Alan J. Perlis (Epigrams in programming) A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. -- Alan J. Perli
i see a lot of triggered atheists by saying natural selection is not random the problem is that natural selection is not the primary mover of evolution but rather it is random mutation because randomness by definition is we know the cause but the cause is blind but chance if we say something happened by chance we don't deny the causation but we say we are ignorant of it a good book for that is "not by chance" and also the original material that natural selection works on is random (since it is random mutation) because natural selection doesn't add anything it is just a filtration mechanism so yes it is random and the atheists were saying he doesn't understand lol
//the problem is that natural selection is not the primary mover of evolution// Yes it is, because the only way to pass your genes on to your offspring is if you survive. A random mutation means nothing if the organism does not survive.
Can anyone explain the fact that there is still soft tissue in bones being found, saying these were once dinosaurs. If dinosaurs existed millions of years ago why is there soft tissue? The soft tissue could literally be stretched as well. Though I understand someone may not know, come up with a hypothesis and tell me. I just don’t want some nasty comments accusing me of anything because I believe in God, our lord and savior.
This is called argument from personal incredulity. Which is in no way related to science. The scientific process is just fine with the answer 'we don't know' to issues that well, we don't know. Like bio genesis. For millennia humans did not know where birds migrated to in the winter. Now we know. The same thing may happen with many of these questions.
In the same way, christians should feel no shame in not knowing all the answers to common atheist rebuttals, we simply don't know. And that's okay. Doesn't mean the worldview becomes entirely discredited because they happen to not have an answer.
The thing is, you/we will never know how life and the universe came into existence using pure materialistic science. The bird analogy here is disingenuous.
@@flashoftruth There's every reason to believe in purpose, design and creation behind every *THING* in existence. Believing otherwise is just pure lunacy.
The evolutionary process must play out as follows if it was a reality. The individual atoms that form the body (that is lifeless matter) of the animal must possess a consciousness to be aware of what the body is, and be aware of the 'life' that is within the form/body. They must be self-aware of not only themselves, but their fellow atoms within the form/body. They must be aware of what life is and perceive the life within the form they compose. They must also be aware of what a healthy life is and what a life under stress is, and care whether it survives or not. They must also be aware of the external environment, what it should be in order to be healthy for the life within the body, and what changes it must have gone through in order to cause the stress of the life within the body, which means the atoms must also be monitoring both the life's condition, and the changing conditions of the external environment (and its effects on the body and life). The atoms must also be aware of what changes they must make to the lifeless atom-made form/body in order to restore health to the life (grow more hair in reaction to a colder environmental change). Now for the body to change form its DNA must change within its reproductive system to bring the corrective change, New information, new atoms for new genes, need to come from somewhere and be put in the right sequence within the reproductive DNA strand to bring the corrective change of growing more hair, needing to know what hair actually is in the first place, or why they are acting in a pro-life direction with the mutations, which requires, as does the rest of this, a consciousness present, which is the point that renders the evolutionary theory extinct, and shows the character of abortion as an abomination. It is obvious that all of these necessary conditions are not just impossible, but far and away from reality. Atoms do not possess their own consciousnesses, they cannot move, they cannot find new atoms for new genes somewhere and plug them into the correct position within the DNA strand, they are not self-aware. But this is exactly what they must be, and be able to do, if the Evolution theory is to play out. Impossible, impossible, impossible. This 'theory' inadvertently proves God's existence. When it is run backwards, and ends up arriving at the first atom in the evolutionary progression, the only two answers explaining where it came from are 1) coming from nothing or, 2) It had to be created out of nothing-by God. Since something cannot come from nothing the answer must be it was created by God. Ending the existence of the evolutionary theory.
@@cheapsuit1234 NO. It has to be created by a creator. Because there was nothing there in the first place. A pot is created 'from' a clay lump, implying there was the lump in existence before the pot. Nothing can come from, or be created from, nothing. A small point in semantics I agree, but those presenting as fact the evolutionary process depend on small semantically similarly sounding, unrelated points to bluff their way through.
He actually abandoned his belief for the most part as a result of his findings and because of his daughter Anne's untimely death at the age of 10...Darwin would walk his wife Emma, who was very troubled by Charles' lack of faith, to church on Sunday mornings...and just keep on walking...his conflict with his faith troubled him until his death. Darwin basically said there are two things that are true: One is that everything dies, and things die for no reason and to no apparent end. And their death is painful. And, that process of living and dying produces something amazing and beautiful and astonishing. And, Darwin himself writes, "There is grandeur in this view of life...from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
The problem is you can’t say but who created the universe as a rebuttal if you are religious because then you have to ask who created the creator ? Which creates the same problem. In other words it’s hypocritical to say but who created the universe to debunk evolution, but not debunk the idea of a super natural creator, as that would also need a creator and involved zero scientific or rational thought.
There is nothing "hypocritical" nor problematic about asking what comes before something else. It's no different than asking what is a human made of? First you would say organs and parts. Then what are those made of? tissue and cells. Then what are those made of? You would continue in this fashion through molecules and atoms until possibly encountering a form of matter that can no longer be broken down to smaller parts and thus conclude that that thing is the first building block of all other things. It would be the same with nature and a Creator. If we did discover a supernatural being we could ask what created it, and continue on down the line just like we would with material things until we find a deity or concept that is no longer made of other things but rather is what originates all things, that would be the Prime Mover, the Creator, God.
I am not religious at all, I believe in a creator but am not religious at all. And the reason why you ask who created the creator is simply a meaningless question. You don't understand that the creator would automatically have to be outside of our space time dimension. Any and every physicists who understand even the most basic quantum physics would tell you the same. Your question is foolish or meaningless because you cant refer to the entity that created the very dimension of time. Before that being created time there was no yesterday, today or tomorrow. There was no past. So the very word "created" is meaningless. The word is the PAST tense of the word create. Before the creator created the time dimension nothing could be referred to as the past. Which means if I told you that god x created god y who created god x, you can't ask who came Before the other. Time doesn't exist for both gods so it is impossible for one to come before the other. The best way I love to explain this is by using an example of a tesseract. That is a cube of equal dimension inside another cube of exactly the same dimensions (l×w×h). Both of them are inside each other at the same time. This is impossible in our 3 dimensional world but is a mathematically proven in string theory. Just like a tesseract exists in a 4 dimensional world, a creator can exist, uncreated outside of our linear time flow. So please don't ask that foolish question again. I know idiots like Richard Dawkins likes throwing out that rubbish but it is illogical bullshit any two bit scientist can answer.
I believe that just as a line starts from a dot same way this all ought to have been created by something/someone who was never created and I believe that being responsible for all we see, know and love is God.
I have always believed we have a God or some superior being simply because of the universe in and of itself. Not even to mention LIFE on the planet. I feel God had to create it because you don't get something from nothing. Even if you say well these molecules or atoms appeared out of nowhere because it's random or chance, etc., God or some superior being had to make those molecules or atoms or otherwise they wouldn't exist. Then God would have had to say, let the chance happen to make the universe. You simply can't get something where there has been absolutely nothing.
More common sense than the entire population of evolutionists combined. They simply cannot reason. Something had to come first. And this video nails it. They simply do not want to believe in, acknowledge or worship God in any way for any reason. They turn their backs on their Creator. They are all led by Satan who inspired their atheistic religion, whether they know it or not. I am looking forward to the day when all the denial and the lying will have to stop. Then the nations will have to know that he is JEHOVAH.
This man underestimates how long a billion years is, let alone 4 and 13 billion years are. That said, it isn't random, imagine that you have a collection of sheep, now breed those who have the traits you want, may it be their cuteness or fluffiness. So you only let the cutest one breed and have children, if you continue to do so the sheep will get cuter and cuter. I haven't heard anyone disprove that. And in nature, the Shepard is the nature itself which works in an indirect way, the sheep may need to grow fluffier to stay warm during harsh and cold winters and so the ones with the thicker fur have a higher chance of surviving and passing on their genes. Again, simple biology and no one disproves this, but why can not small changes become large ones with enough time? The first feathers looked like some sort of strange hairs and they evolved into the feathers of a peacock, yes it is still a feather but the point is that with enough time, large changes are inevitable. Edit: One atheist doesn't speak for all of us, the only common factor between any two atheists is that they do not believe in a God. An atheist who believes in spirits and ghouls and such things is just as much of an atheist as someone who doesn't as ghouls and spirits aren't gods. Please don't lump us all together like this, it's like saying that all religions are the exact same because they believe in a or multiple gods. So by that logic, there is no difference between Christianity and Hinduism, both belief in a or multiple Gods. That is the exact logic you use against us. And why does the origin of life play any role in evolution at all? Evolution *only* and I mean ONLY cares about living organisms such as you and I.
The evidence of life doesn't require religion. The start of life does require much explanation even when one is presented with such dilemma in the shortfall of presenting information. Theories based on "what we have found" are bullshit and so are "fact checkers"
But they will still remain sheep and their origin is through a sheep ancestor and not some water droplet lmao what your mentioning is adaptation not evolution theory which claims everything can come from nothing lol
why does the origin of life play any role in evolution at all? because for anything to evolve it has to originate somewhere first. Did you seriously ask that question or was that a mistake?
@@johnnyboy1586 well, that's kinda an ironic case of special pleading doncha think? Something from nothing is a modern term immortalised by krause, and often interpreted very poorly to the point that the interpretation is often completely wrong even by those that study science. Second would be that there's a difference between a mathematical or material nothingness, and a philosophical nothingness. Ppl often argue for the philosophical nothing when trying to debunk the big bang for instance. When krause is describing something from nothing, he is describing the field fluctuations and virtual particles at the quantum level. According to the math as best that we understand it, even in the absence of real particles, the fields themselves are unstable and will eventually produce real particles. I don't pretend to understand it either, that's just the cliffs notes version. However a disconnect arises where some creationists attempt to reconcile the accepted science with the biblical word, things like "there was nothing and then god spoke and we have seven days of creation." There's actually a very strong disconnect there in that the earliest translations of genesis say the earth was already in existence, but was dark, or void. "Void" may even be a Greek inspired translation but I'll leave that to historians to weigh in on. Now to tie the whole thread together, no one knows exactly how everything got started, or even if there is anything we could recognise as a true begining of everything, or even anything. So automatically attributing an unknown, to another unknown or supernatural phenomenon or something else that can't be proven,ames about as much sense as blaming the wind on angry pixies. Which ppl did for centuries before we knew what the wind actually is and figured out how it works.
@@bhaktiyogadivine7295 No, science does not exclusively deal with matter, I dont know where you got that definition from. And again you claim something without proof. How do you want to know that conciousness is independent of matter? Pretty much every observation we made so far was that the construct of consciousness is directly dependent on matter. If you are interested in more Info you might like to look into behavioural biology
@@MetallicPetals Well you do that by studying them and comparing them. Just because there are alot of religions doesnt mean that there is no truth to it. Just like for an example if you take a test and there are multiple answers to a question, you can only pass the test when you answer the right answers to the questions. So you have to study them and compare them and ofcourse i know nobody got time to compare 3000 religions, but i would advice you to look at the biggest of them and comparing them, because in these days every moron can start a religion for their own personal benifit. Another advice is, just ask god to help you find the truth, just try it, you have nothing to lose only to gain.
@@voetbalmeester1 But which God do I talk to? That's the issue here, too many to ask as you said, and I simply won't just ask the most popular one, the amounts of followers doesn't mean that said God becomes anymore real
@Elliott Rayon you troglodyte lol. I’m talking about evolution. I’m Christian but also believe in natural sciences. Also just because we don’t know the origins of life doesn’t mean god lmao. You’re an idiot.
@Elliott Rayon let’s disassemble a watch and put all the necessary components into a tumbler. According to this man and evolution it should eventually reassemble itself back into a perfectly working watch just by chance of it rolling around in all its necessary parts. But even then, that would still prove that an intelligent being was necessary to make all those parts in the first place. Notice how enraged and scared he and others get when you attack their evolution religion.
@Elliott Rayon at the time it was a theory because it was a completely new science. How do you not understand that? People always bring up Darwin but they don’t bring up what we actually know now which tells me you and your weird ideology’s are actually scared of learning new things and being proven wrong
Darwin never knew genetics existed. Mendel never observed DNA. We just don't know enough to answer those questions YET. Believing there is a creator just because we don't know an answer to a question is illogical.
Evolution is based on an argument from personal credulity, where a person accepts a theory too eagerly without examining it in greater depth. According to evolutionary theory, complexity is generated by random mutation - the role of natural selection is only to preserve it . To say that evolution is not random is like saying that winning the lottery is not random - because the part where you go to collect your winnings is not random! Theistic evolution and atheistic evolution are both systems of belief that cloud objective thinking. Find out more at www.lifewithoutevolution.uk
I dont understand the metaphor, but yeah evolutions not exactly random because the mutations are often meaningful adaptations. It's not just genes going haywire. Evolution isn't a system of belief either. Theres tons of evidence if you'd like me to provide some.
The word i think alot of people are missing is chance :) Chance is the part of the equation that is completely baseless. In the context of the overwhelmingly complex reality, its just a synonym for “random”
@L John DNA is not an "intelligently created code", it just _is._ There is no reason to believe it has been "guided". When water flows down a hill, nothing _guides_ it, it just flows. To the untrained eye, it may appear that something has "guided" it along its path, but flow water down the same hill again, and it will take a slightly different path. Nothing guided it differently, but small variations in the path caused the water to flow differently, randomly...this is the same for DNA and offspring. Each new generation is slightly different than its parent[s], sometimes the change is significant, sometimes its not, sometimes it's beneficial, sometimes it isn't, and the way that the variation functions in the organism's environment through natural selection then decides whether the organism will survive and reproduce or not. Beneficial mutations I guess you could consider as "adding complexity", but even so, this is not a "guided" process, again, it just "is".
@L John In other words...is a giraffe that has adapted a longer neck than its parents more "complex" than its parents? I'd say "no"...it's just evolved a more beneficial trait that will allow it to survive better and be able to pass on its genes.
@@JFK-ir7yz Last I checked the only thing atheists agree on is the nonexistence of gods, not whether if evolution is true... But lets assume that all atheist believe in evolution, what does explosion have to do with evolution?
We do not have an explanation for the origin of life nor a full understanding of how the complete complexity of life emerged from its humble beginnings, therefore God. God of the Gaps/Appeal to Ignorance rhetoric as always.
God informs my scientific search. I don't stuff him into gaps. As soon as I discover his absence, I will be the first to dump him. Until then, being a God-believer does not hinder my search in any way, shape or form. And it is very unscientific of you to suggest that it does.
Craig Long I addressed the comments made in this video, which is a God of the Gaps/Appeal to Ignorance perspective. Unless you are the speaker in the video, I made no comment about your personal view on things. Are you the speaker in the video?
Craig Long I am suggesting that all arguments are limited to the topics they cover, and do not apply to the subjects they do not address. Perhaps when you are done trolling, we can move on to more useful things.
Hmm. So, when someone calls you out, it's trolling. Let me guess: when someone agrees with you, do you call him an ally? Come now, snowflake - man up. I was not trolling - I was expressing a very valid, clear, and relevant idea.
Yes there is a difference, but to my knowledge atleast, what is being suggested is that the evolutionary theory doesn’t give any plausible ways to originate life for said life to them evolve
@@SQUISHBUBBLE Evolutionary theory isn't supposed to give any ways - plausible or otherwise - to originate life. That's not its job. You might as well complain that it doesn't cook your breakfast or explain why pi has the value it does.
@@SQUISHBUBBLE because evolution deals with life, it doesn't say anything about non life because it doesn't apply. That's why abiogenesis is its own field of study. The reason it is it's own field of study becomes a question of what life is, and what is alive and is not? In between would be a murky transition of abiotic chemicals that can both affect their immediate environment, engage in self synthesis, but also not have a property of genetic coherence or inheritability. These molecules of chemicals would be able to select but also be able to replicate by themselves, they would needs a medium or catalyst to facilitate further reactions and assist in replication. It's complicated in a way, but rest not all that complicated in theory.
and yet despite the flaws abiogenesis carry it is still the foundation on which evolution sits as the next stage (stage 2 if you will), without it there is no evolution to take place 🙄.
@@michaelanderson7715 is evolution a fact ? Can something be created from nothing a fact? Isn't Jesus a fact? Isnt the bible a fact. Prove to me God is not real! you being here is evidence God is real. We was created from nothing really?
@@michaelanderson7715 The universe must have a cause! the most fundamental law of science is the law of cause and effect! for every material effect we see there is a cause that come before it, or was simultaneous to it, and that is greater than it! The universe is a material effect, so what cause the universe? MUST BE GOD! Makes more sense than a singularity "something that popped into existence from nothing". Empty your hands and watched them, close them and reopened them. LET ME KNOW IF NOTHING MAKES SOMETHING!
Those arguments are so good, if an atheist says that evolution doesn't exist it must mean that it doesn't exist. I'm convinced evolution doesn't exist. I love Jesus. And F*** penguins
00:47:00 "...there are at least two things that atheists and Darwinists simply cannot explain. The first is the origin of life from non-living matter..." Science currently has no theory to explain the origin of life. There are a few hypotheses including so-called "abiogenesis". But then nobody at all knows the origin of life, whether it came from non-living matter or not. It may be that we'll never know. So what?
Correction: abiogenesis isn't a hypothesis. It's an observation, a study of the origins of life. We pretty much assume life arose from non-living matter just by way of recognizing that a) life is comprised of the same material as everything else and b) that the category of life itself is difficult to pin down and there are many examples of things which aren't typically thought of as living, yet share some of the qualities of we use to categorize life e.g. viruses. What we don't know is _how_ exactly life could have developed. It's a long and chemically complex processes with many steps that have to be accounted for. We can demonstrate how some of those steps may have happened, but the larger ones like RNA and DNA are still mysterious. That's where the hypothesizing comes in with things like RNA world.
@@janos6644 faith helps life?!?! That's not true at all. We have faith because of emotions? I know people that praise God and have almost nothing to he happy about. You think every believer is just running around in cloud nine happy because life has some kind of new purpose?!?! It's called faith because we choose to believe it. Not because it makes us feel good.
@@Drew-hd4hm bro actually it does i was in depression and emotionally becoming numb and then i started worshiping as my last way and i thought that if this is not going to work I'll give up my life but No god helped me and here i am today
Nor do we need any such thing. Evolution is a totally separate phenomenon. As to Abiogenesis, what we DO see in lab supports the shit out of it. And no "god" ever showed up or DID ANYTHING!! Also, the whole bible is wrong fictional lies. Every book is kiddie book nonsense. And nothing happened that it says happened. Even jesus has zero evidence. No "creation", instead big bang, then a LOT later, solar planetary formation, Evolution, No adam and eve, we Evolved from African apes. No "Flood", proved impossible a long time ago, No exodus, moses never existed, Egypt had NO hebrew slaves, it was all fiction.
@@samuelstephens6904 "What we don't know is how exactly life could have developed. It's a long and chemically complex processes with many steps that have to be accounted for." Don't you see the hypocritical contradiction in this statement?? First you say we don't know, which is correct, then you go on, explaining it the way you would LIKE to believe, but you have zero evidence for this. Life is not created by chemical processes as much as robots are not created by lightening striking trash heaps, even when there are fully functioning robot parts available. You can wait forever, may it be billions of years, it simply will not happen, unless you watch some Walt Disney movies. Please, this is ludicrous. Not even considering that the robot must be able to replicate itself, find energy etc. - This is also true for "primitive cells", which do not exist btw. - but when this evolution theory was developed, science did not know anything about the complexity of a small cell, they rather imagined them to be empty shells, filled with liquid.
You can't just say "ItS nOawt PosSiBLe, TwooO cOMpwex 🥺" we know how these thing work, and where they came from. Just because the brain is complex that doesn't mean there's a god. Your lack of understanding or beliefs don't matter, these are completely understood, unequivocally true facts.
Yeah sure. And if you have enough time you will also roll the dice 10.000 times to get a simple result like 100 times a six in a row, right? (Which is nothing in comparision to create something which is alive, thinking and rolling dice itself, right?) There are limits to chance and modern mathematics has proven them very accurately. Just modern science is not honest enough to apply this knowledge to the nonsense theory of evolution. They might also tell you that if you wait long enough, on a scrapyard there will be a self-replicating robot, coming to existence by mere forces of nature, as radiation, heat or a lightening strike. This is material for fairytales, but not for science.
Imagine there being sounds in the universe and after billions of years of chaos & collisions the complex music notes of Behtoven are assembled on a sheet of paper. That's how evolution sounds like to me when explaining the origin of life...Hahah
I’d respect people who believe in Evolution if they’d just admit they don’t want to believe in a Higher Power. But lying and deceiving others in public schools that the taxpayer funds? At least be objective and show both views. No name calling. Let people see every side and let them decide what they want to believe. Just. Be. Honest.
@@flammmenspeeryt9184 neither can you. No one was there at the beginning. Therefore, nothing having to deal with that topic should be regarded as fact. Both sides. Duh
@@lizd2943 Semantics and changing words. You can't expect anything from an unguided process. It's akin to saying 'things evolved b/c we can see evolution' it's circular reasoning.
His brain is stupefied by its own complexity, so it judges itself as naturally impossible. That's a hell of a roundabout way to make yourself feel special.
//PLAIN, CLEAR, AND OBVIOUS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE INTELLECT // Uh, no it is not, and that is an intellectually dishonest thing to claim and most definitely not scientific or logical.
@yazed alblwi So, you are "sane" and the 1000s of scientists that specialize in evolutionary biology and all of its related fields of study are all lying, insane, and involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever seen right? Before I address your _issues,_ could you please answer these questions? It will give me a better understanding of who I am dealing with. Can you please define "evolution"? Can you please provide citations for your claims? How many evolutionary biology classes have you taken? How many evolutionary biologists have you conversed with? Where did you get your degree? Can you tell us the process of how a hypothesis becomes a theory? What are the odds of something happening AFTER it has already happened? ___
@yazed alblwi //hydrolytic sorting shows that the layers in the Earth are proven to have been put there by water.// "Put there" suggests a conscious act, water has no brain, the layers "ended up there"...and what does this have to do with evolution? //dinosaur death pose// What about it? //mitochondrial eve// Debunks "Adam and...", and what does this have to do with evolution? //the vostok ice core samples// What about them? //second law of Thermodynamics entropy// What about it, and what does this have to do with evolution? //giant ice wolf head and dogs prove microevolution is damage control.// How so? //macro evolution has never been seen// Yes it has, we are an example. //anything with the chance of happening of one to the 50th power is considered scientifically absurd...// According to whom, and what does this have to do with evolution? //meanwhile our blood coalesces at odds of 1 to the 270 millionth power.// Ok...and what does this have to do with evolution? //aliens are demons// lol...ok...and what does this have to do with evolution? //Nephilim bones// No such thing, but what does this have to do with evolution? //human DNA is level six complexity.// Ok, what does that mean? Who came up with the "levels"? //only level two can be achieved by accidental chemistry.// Says who, and what does this have to do with evolution? //consciousness itself. being separate from the body.// What about it, and what does this have to do with evolution? //the Fibonacci sequence.// What about it, and what does this have to do with evolution? //fractals.// What about them and what does this have to do with evolution? //incredibly complex ecosystems that are interdependent.// What about them? //10 human organs that rely on each other to function defy your ideas of Macro evolution.// No they don't. //human and dinosaur footprints together.// Hoaxes and straight up bullshit: ncse.ngo/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown But what does this have to do with evolution? //human and dinosaur living together carvings and statues.// Horseshit, but what does this have to do with evolution? //chlorophyll on T-Rexes tooth shows that most dinosaurs like iguanodon were vegetarian.// Iguanodon was, T-Rex were carnivores. //live red blood cells found in the Horn of a dinosaur meaning that it was alive less than 2,000 years ago.// No it wasn't. //oceanic trench and Continental Beach heads prove the movement of pangea to modern configuration because of the flood.// wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution? //272 civilizations out of account of the flood that were not influenced by the Bible (haven't heard of it)// Wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution? //sea life and sediments on all mountain tops of the world which would require a minimum of 100 feet of water above.// Wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution? //ice Age was literally caused by the flood.// Wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution? //if you believe in a big bang then you have to wonder where did the heavy elements and stars come from in the first place and why did they explode and how come no explosions ever in the history of mankind have ever created something that they only destroy.// I "accept" the big bang. Yes, we do wonder. The big bang was not an "explosion", but what does this have to do with evolution? //creation of fossils are extremely rare and form best underwater ergo to the flood.// "Ergo" nothing. //going Evolution natural selection implies intelligence.// No it doesn't. //entropy states that we're going to a state of disorder which means that we were once put together neatly.// "Put together" is intellectually dishonest and begging the question. //that is entirely opposite of the belief of evolution. the laws of nature prove evolution is a lie.// No it isn't, no it doesn't, evolution is a fact. //many of your prominent atheists have begun to admit that it seems we may have been put here by aliens because that the only intelligent source they can admit to.// No they haven't, you are lying. //mutations are obviously bad.// Wrong. //take a complex computer program for example like our DNA and just keep removing and scrambling the binary and see how many programs you have that still work.// Our DNA is not like a computer program, just because you do not understand evolution does not in any way affect the theory being a fact. You claim to be "sane" yet demonstrate you being anything but...
@yazed alblwi //these are popular objections against evolution// Perhaps, but none hold water. //well apparently evolution and the big bang was an "accident" or pretty much something that had a possibility and happened without any authority// Ok...and? //to say that our blood coalesces at such an absurd possibility, makes me question, if theres really something that created us// An argument from incredulity is a fallacy...just because you don't know something, can't figure something out, or find something difficult to believe is NOT evidence for a "god" nor is it reason to assume an "authority" exists. //its mathematically impossible for something with such an odd to have happend without any. single. authority.// Apparently not. //but where are these 1000 scientists?// czcams.com/video/Ty1Bo6GmPqM/video.html //where is any evidence of these 1000 scientists?// czcams.com/play/PLpe6JzIXdqVF_8S817Tqx-GfOYGoWSHr5.html Take your pick... //you shouldnt say "scientists" since the scientists who believe in evolution are a minority.// No they aren't. There is no rational scientist that denies evolution.
//just go look up second law of thermodynamics and evolution// Ok...and? //Stated differently, an isolated system will always tend to disorder// The problem is you just have no idea what you are talking about...you have your doubts, find something that aligns with your misconception, and then run with it...but that is just poor science. www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/does-thermodynamics-disprove-evolution ***
@yazed alblwi ////to bring up something which was never even intented to be taken as a point, or an argument in the first place, and apply a logical fallacy to the argument that mentiones the phrase, is just so dishonest..// lol...the irony. //this is probably one of the dumbest responses i have ever got// To someone that is too stupid to understand just how stupid he is, I am certain it is...but it's still true. //its not the we DONT KNOW, we surely do know that its MATHMATICALLY impossible for such an "incident" to occur// No, no it's not. //and as you know math can never be proved wrong// What the fuck? Sure it can be. //using binomial distrubutions which i doubt you have ANY idea about// Ok, then what are the odds of something occurring AFTER it has already happened? //as they are the most reliable distrubutions for possibility/probabality we could easily conclude that the evolution theory is impossible// Wrong, obviously, because evolution is a fact. //this gives even a further in detail answer// _"Answers in fucking GENESIS"??????_ BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! //ill just make it clear that these scientists that try to push the agenda that evolution is a fact are NOT dumb// Nope, but clearly you are. No rational scientist denies evolution is a fact, no rational human being does.
The two most distinguished American palaeontologists of modern times, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, both demonstrated 30 years ago that one of Darwin's 2 main ideas was false. His second idea was eugenics and we all know how "well" that idea went.
How is it that a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy can't recognize a textbook argument from incredulity? 0:28 "Random processes" The laws of physics aren't random. It's called "natural selection", not "random selection". Why don't you save the biology questions for a Professor of Biology.
There is no proof that the "natural selectors" sought out compatible "mates". That process was random. In that random process, there is a possibility that compatible forms bumped into each other and joined or influence the other or each. But, RANDOM ran the show. Inert chemicals did not purpose to find or join and if they did join or influence, it was random chance that made it happen
@L John Yes. Natural selection doesn't explain how phenotypes are introduced. It explains how the frequency of advantageous or deleterious phenotypes naturally change in a population over time. Natural selection is only part of the evolutionary process. Natural selection is not random.
@L John "Natural selection is unguided. It's blind." A rain drop is also blind, yet it always finds its way to the ground. "Natural selection does not explain how origination of trait, which is the driving force of evolution." An engine is the driving force behind a car. Yet a car isn't going anywhere without wheels. Evolution requires three things to work: selection, variation, and inheritance. All three are 100% necessary to make it work. Natural selection on its own isn't enough. "Mutation does not explain the origination of the trait, b/c mutation has limitations." That's like saying I can walk across the street but it's impossible to walk across the city. Your failure to imagine a thing is possible, has no bearing on reality. Incredulity is not an argument. And neither a computer nor a car can evolve (and any other inanimate object you wish to conjure up for comparison) because they lack all three of the required processes: selection variation, and inheritance. It's always amusing that the people that can't get the 7th grade science right think they've out smarted all the Biologists.
@yazed alblwi Basically, it feels as if many creationists of all religions want us to stop researching things if we can't figure out how it works instantly because we will never do it in the future so let's say God and move on. I really dislike that idea of thinking because if we did that, we wouldn't have computers and nothing of what we have today because scientists and inventors stared at a bunch of things and then tried things out and learned how stuff works and learned how to use it to their and societies advantage. How would that benefit us in any way, so if we don't know, why not study it harder to get a grasp of it?
I don’t have a problem with the guy talking but he doesn’t understand the concept. Simple as that. Ask a real biologist or someone who’s profession is evolutionary biology.
@Elliott Rayon I didn’t see this reply until now but we do have a couple theory’s about where life came from. Further cementing that you don’t know what you’re talking about troglodyte.
@Elliott Rayon Nope, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the hypotheses of abiogenesis...and there are about 10 actually, but here are 7: futurism.com/abiogenesis-7-scientific-theories-origin-life-one-new-one
@Elliott Rayon //But the theory of Evolution requires it// All it requires is life, and I reiterate, it speaks nothing about how life got there nor takes anything away from the theory. //any hypothesis other than a creator demands abiogenesis// Ok...and? //and no theory of something as absurd as the organic coming from inorganic proves otherwise.// Does it matter how "absurd" it sounds to anyone if it's true? We have already recreated the building blocks for life in a lab, where will we be in 100 years? How about 1000? A little over 100 years ago in 1903 the Wright Brothers took their first flight, 2013 and we are talking about manned Mars missions. When we are able to form life, what will separate us from the gods? But regardless, we are not "creating" life or atoms, we are merely reforming it. //So why are you pasting links to, quite possibly, the most silly theory ever created// Because they aren't theories, they are hypotheses, and all still valid. And you have a thing for _cement_ don't ya?
@@flashoftruth While Darwinian evolution only addresses biological evolution, the earlier chemical evolution is still needed. Saying there are about 10 different hypothesis tells you right there that they're just coming up with wild speculations. At least 9 have to be wrong, and that doesn't bode well for the 10th... As far as I know, nobody has redone the false Miller-Urey experiment using the actual chemical makeup of the atmosphere on Earth and gotten all the building blocks of life to form. That's very telling. Instead, man (an intelligence) sets up elaborate experiments to force certain things to happen, completely different than nature's own doing. And building blocks of life don't randomly assemble themselves into complex nano machines and information systems. Add to all this, sentient lifeforms require consciousness. That doesn't come from matter. It's separate from matter and comes from elsewhere. Decades of research into after death experiences, past life memories, out of body experiences, etc. are completely ignored in evolution theory and abiogenesis. Creating theories based on ignorance and partial knowledge leads to false theories.
@jae Pea Incorrect, an atheist does not argue that God does not exist. Atheism is not an argument, it's the rejection of a claim that is not supported by the evidence. Think of ALL the gods that YOU do not believe exist...an atheist just believes at least 1 less god exists than you. So, how does an argument from incredulity apply here exactly? Do you even know what an "argument from incredulity" is?
@jae Pea Theist: someone that believes 1 or more gods exist. Atheist: Someone who does not believe 1 or more gods exist. Atheists do not believe any gods exist because there is not enough evidence to convince us any gods exist. It is not a claim that no gods exist, this includes Yahweh/Allah.
@jae Pea "you give a self defeating statement and try and defend it." There is nothing to defend, and you cannot defend your willful ignorance on this matter. If you cannot accept the definitions of words and want to pretend they mean what you want them to that is fine, but that is ALL on you, not on me for providing the proper definition. It is a word that is unnecessary really, because I am sure there are many things that you do not believe exist, like Santa Claus right? Now, there are a lot of people that do not actually believe Santa exists right? How many "A-santas" do you know or have ever heard of? Has anyone ever called you an "Asantaist"? Of course not...so, why is there a word for those that do not believe any god exists except so that desperate theists like yourself can attempt to misrepresent it? //or can you explain how matter comes from nothing?// Nope. Can you explain how a god makes it magically appear? I have no reason to believe there has ever been "nothing", it makes sense that the materials that this universe consist of have always existed and are part of a "greater" Cosmos. But "Cosmos" is not "god"...it's Cosmos...and this consists of everything that exists and has always existed, we have no reason to assume otherwise.
This man is absolutely right on point. And Thomas Nagel (author of the book he refers to) is a short book, but on point explanation of the 2 impossibilities that Darwinian evolution offers. The universe, earth and life were created! The mathematical, biological, paleontological, and archeological evidence is massively pointing to that conclusion. IMO, to not acknowledge these main points - that Intelligent Design was required in all of the above - indicates either a lack of research on the subjects, or a closed mind to the overwhelming evidence in many disciplines (math, philosophy, science, etc).
abel never married, he was killed by Cain. the development of people on the earth was well on the way, which is why Cain got married when he went to a city called Nod, there was people living in that city, not everything is going to be spell out for you, read the bible for yourself.
@@endofdays7708 Got married WITH WHO? There was no other people around! These are the sons of adam and eve. It is so painfully obvious that the bible is bullshit eh
@@Aguijon1982 You must remember, Adam and Eve created many children and lived for hundreds of years. If eve created a child every year, and her genes are pure, even inbreeding will cause no problem because there are no sickness in the genes yet. Do you expect the Bible to list all people birthed by Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel may have been the first. Do you expect Adam to stop shagging with her wife when cain and abel were born? They most likely shagged a lot and populated the earth. But since the story's focus is on Cain and Abel, common sense dictates that Cain would have to shag one of her sisters, as he lived for hundreds of years as well. And since women gets pregnant as early as 13 years old, he has plenty of choices at that time.
-"The information in living things and the overwhelming of complexity of that information could not have been generated by natural laws and random processes." Do you have any actual evidence that this is impossible? Or is this just an argument from personal incredulity? Complexity is a red herring. We know that the universe in general has many natural processes which moves things towards complexity. We can even recognize this in organic chemistry and how the building blocks of life can arise naturally. Likewise, these processes aren't random. That's also a dishonest bit of misleading. They are natural and deterministic. I can understand why your average Jill or Joe who goes to church on Sunday might say these things, but for apologists and people who have the time to make professional CZcams videos, there is absolutely no honest reason why they continue to roll out these PRATTs. They must know how wrong they are at this point. -"there are at least two things Darwinsist and atheists cannot explain." So what? Does not having an explanation for something mean there is justification to say that God accounts for it? Of course not. "Hey everyone! Magic did it!" The logic is just not sound. -"Ever looked at the human brain? That thing's complicated." We've got a real Einstein here.
@L John -"LOL the human brain is not complex?" Obviously, my sarcastic comment was meant to convey how trivial and useless a claim like "the human brain is really complex" is. Like, duh! -"yes we have evidence that intelligence shows complexity and unguided systems do not create intelligence and complexity." And what is this evidence? Surely "unguided systems" can produce complexity. Molecules can randomly interlock with each other to form compounds. Gravity can turn dispersed space dust into entire solar systems. Even a rock rolling down a hill into a pile of other rocks results in increased complexity since a pile of rocks + 1 more rock is by definition more complex than a pile of rocks. So this is a trivially easy claim to refute.
@@bobp1069 There are a bunch of different reasons that stack on top of each other. There’s a lack of compelling empirical evidence. God doesn’t seem like a necessary explanation for any phenomena in reality, let alone an adequate or satisfying one. The problem of evil. The entire idea of God, especially one who intervenes in reality on our behalf, seems exactly like the sort of thing the superstitious part of human nature would come up with. I could go on.
All Christians reading this, let not your heart resort to anger, but instead prey. This man clearly sees there must be a God, but doesn't want there to be one. Evolution really isn't supported by science or micro evolution. Add yeah, I have studied this, I'm not passively saying this. Check out Ken Ham's language of DNA for more. This proves evolution is only and excuse. Therefore pray, and your sins will be forgiven by Christ Jesus.
You say evolution really isn't supported by science. Are you going to support these claims? Because we can simply look up tons of videos on here that tell theories & show multitudes of evidence for us.
@@thomas7571 All right, first of all i do belive in creation beacuse there are just no other explanation for life. But evolution isnt "an ape magically turning into human". Imagine how breeding works, originally there were only wolfes but by allways selecting the wolfes/dogs with the desirable characteristics and only let them have offsprings we made a lot of types of diferent small wolfes. Wolfes didnt magically turned into pugs, it was a slow and long process. And this is how evolution/natural selection works, only its not humans but the enviroment wich makes the species change slowly, the enviroment also changes all the time and the animals wich had better characteristics by chance survive while others die, those who had those specific things like longer teeth or something also will only have babies with those longer teeth so the specie just changed a little bit. Pugs and borzois look very diferent but they both came from wolfes, from a shared ancestor thru a long process. Once long time ago this happened with the shared ancestors of humans and other apes, some specie developed long arms to climb and reach fruits, but an other branch by chance had some smarter than average members wich were more sucsesslfull than any other and even among them the smarter ones overcome the less smart ones, so the group thru millions of years allways got smarter while other species got stronger and eventually this group is became what we call today humans.
Accidents don't result in mathematical perfection. Accidents equal accidents. But failure is an intellectually driven attempt at accomplishing "something". This Universe is not unspecified, random in its flow, or jagged and uneven. The Holy Quran says that Allah made The Sun and The Moon and all of life to serve humanity. Which reinforces that it was human beings who proceeded Nature, and ultimately human beings (gods) who created Nature. Go read the article on the people who planted The Amazon Rainforest. Read the article on the ancient nuclear reactor found in Africa. The Pyramids. There is no incentive for monkeys or alleged primitive persons to achieve mastery of mathematics. There's an incentive to master environment/the jungle, but not to exceed that into cosmic interaction with the planets and stars, which is what The Pyramids do, they reflect Orion's Belt in near perfect chirality.
@@prathameshvarsriskandaraja1977 The probability of turning any form of inanimate matter into a living thing is ZERO, according to the Law of Biogenesis. You might want to ask a 5th grader about it. www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
@@nym1001 The probability of turning any of those inanimate sedimentary rocks into a living thing is ZERO, according to the Law of Biogenesis. Get educated. www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
@@rstevewarmorycom Not Me.. And I Think It's Pretty Obvious As Well...Nothing Has Never Made Something....Most Likely You Never Seen The Builder Of Your House But Common Sense Will Tell You Somebody Had To Build Your House..I'm Sure You Don't Think That The House Built Itself? Let's Not Make This Difficult..So When We Transition To More Complex Things Let's Also Keep A Common Sense Type Outlook.. The Pyramids In Egypt For Example Have You Ever Seen The Builders?? But You Do Know Somebody(or people) Built It Right?? Look Around It's Obvious Everything That Was Ever Built Or Made Needs A Maker But Then We Start Talking About A More Bigger Project Being How The Earth Came To B People Just Throw Away There Common Sense Lol
how do people find it in themselves to believe that every living being came from one cell or whatever and not from one god. I'm religious and I would take more seriously someone who doesn't believe in both.
@@flammmenspeeryt9184 this is not about religion, it's about believing and knowing something that does make sense to me but go ahead I'd love to hear what you go to say
@@abrahamnasiri7684 Hear it from me. I’m catholic but believe in evolution. Look at goosebumps. When your scared or cold your hair stands on end. When we had fur this would’ve made it look bigger and would’ve made us warmer. Our coxix is a lost remnant of a tail bone. Embryogenesis stages and what I believe is weeks 3-4 we have a tail. My links on CZcams get deleted because CZcams’s bots are basically the equivalent to nazis but I recommend you look up Darwin’s finches. This goes into natural selection and the Galapagos Finches rapidly evolving. I forgot the fishes names but they also grew in size in just a couple years. These are processes called rapid evolution.
@@achimpanzee9210 who told you I don't believe in evolution? but not in humans. on the surface yes, skin height features... but not the fact that we were a whole other creature. humans are too complexe and fine tuned.
@@aseemap8308 //mistake is a human perspective// As opposed to...? //If there is no such thing as perfect how can there be a mistake// There is the definition of "perfect", that does not mean that such a thing is actually attainable, besides the pure subjectivity of it all. Because there are a few things that we could consider "perfect", but they deal with mathematics and music. //i just feel that way. My feelings doesnt care about facts.// Well, I at least appreciate your honesty even though I would ask, why? And does that mean that you care more about your feelings than the facts? Because my feelings definitely care about the facts.
It is random nothing is controlling it unless its God And we cant choose what happens to our kids so its totally random mutations are said to create more complexity but often mutations are rare and harmful causing albinos animals or other defects such as rendering the animal unable to breed fruits dna mutate causing seedless fruit
@@atteindresiempredad You have to make that up, even though the text clearly says days. Lol. Before science the theologians were all convinced it was literal days.
@@RS54321 never heard of the Bible? Kingdom of heaven? Read book of Job? He crushes his enemies and binds their faces together in the dirt? You may not believe it-and that’s cool…but if you met me you wouldn’t say anything to me bc you’d be afraid
Be simple and be plain. A behavior I've notice in regards to the caucasians (me being a black man) is that you all like to make things difficult and complex. Not realizing or remembering that, from basic ground level principles do ALL complex theories opinions or facts come from. You cannot have a complex thought without the fundamentals. I can break down every complex statement or thing to it's basic principles. From the principles are you able to make things complex. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON-PHYSICAL. Even words are physical. Reason why God said every word is recorded. Sound is physical!!!
You are genius sir. And I hate darvin that he crashed humans knowledge. Knowledge passed by head to head. Our old beings know something that we cant assumed. So they told to their generations There is north at there is holy beings. They came and reproduced generations. Created cast, gives knowledge. And told us go back to our real home that home never be vanished(like our sun dims 1000 crore years later, but upper stars dont)
@@betsieswartz travel star to star, in north direction to reach, way for outer universe .., what you need for this travel .. You have to,achieve ., make a foundation for that think... This is in message ...
What's wrong with coming to the conclusion that we are '' deliberately 'created'' and not ''evolved sponataneously''
If they accept that, then they know they must answer to God for what they have done
They're stubborn people
there is no evidence supporting deliberate creation or of a creator, and there is bountiful evidence for evolution.
I appreciate the man's honesty. Seems that no matter how hard we as humans try, we can't get away from the fact we have a creator.
//we can't get away from the fact we have a creator.//
It's not a _fact._
@@flashoftruth you don’t know that
@@vincentmcmahon7856 Yes, yes we do. We KNOW that a god is NOT a "fact". A god simply cannot be proven to exist, so how can it be a "fact"?
Or "creator"...
@@flashoftruth it can be a fact but we just don’t know that it is
Just argument from incredulity to argument from incredulity.
Exactly.
How do you get something from nothing? Please explain? Without something, it wouldn't exist. A first grader could understand it. If anything, you are the one being incredulous.
@@MrJeffrey316 Can you prove there has ever been "nothing"?
@@MrJeffrey316 "If anything, you are the one being incredulous."
No, you just have no idea what you are arguing against.
*“I don’t want there to be a God”*
So even if He’s there, you’re just gonna pretend. Thanks for being honest though.
No atheist says that.
So there was this magical primordial soup and some critter that lived in it decided it wanted to crawl out and begin living on land. What was this critter? If it emerged by itself, how did it reproduce? Unless it was a male and female critter that decided to abandon the soup at the same time, there's no way for any species to survive all alone. Evolution seems like glorified morphing. I'd love for someone to tell me exactly what emerged from that soup and in what order. And how it reproduced.
Still way more realistic and probable than any religion ever lol. It seems like we’re on the right track with evolution , we just have a lot to figure out. And a simple google search would explain different theory’s that make sense on how they managed to make their way out of the water after all that time.
The whole point of evolution is an organism reacting to its environment. Genetic mutation can occur in asexual cells which is why it took so long for those cells to become a real animal. It’s not a Pokémon evolution where the animal suddenly changes, it’s minor changes over the course of thousands to millions of years. Look up Galapagos Finches and you’ll see what I’m talking about as my links always get deleted
@@achimpanzee9210 All I want to know is what creatures were before finches then? Before they were birds, what were they? Everything I've seen looks more like morphing, not changing from an asexual plankton to something that began to crawl and breathe on land to something that decided to change its own skin, grow feathers and fly. Regardless of how much time you give them.
@@yamnjam the blue-back grassquit Volatinia jacarina is a direct ancestor to Galapagos Finches but if you want to get even further then you can look at theropods. The Finches when reaching the Galápagos Islands specifically evolved 2 million years ago and diversified from there on.
@@yamnjam also the ancestor to all dinosaurs which were the ancestors of Finches is Thecodontia. A group of reptiles that flourished in the Triassic period which would later evolve into the dinosaurs, pterosaurs and crocodiles.
This man shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how gene replication works and how mistakes in transcribing the information leads to mutations. Keep in mind deletion of genes is only one of four types of genetic mutation, the others being translocation, redundant copies, and insertion.
Excuses & excuses & excuses
@@NyanNyanNyanNyanNyanNyanNyanN this person gave actual reason as to why the guy in the video is wrong but you just say excuses three times. Obviously your reasoning is concrete
@@achimpanzee9210 you mean to tell me from a dead universe there can form life and intelligence by itself? And dna and genetic code all to form by its f**king self? What kind of world do we live in bro
@@NyanNyanNyanNyanNyanNyanNyanN still better of a reason over excuses
True what does that prove? Doesn't really help in evolution case anyways since evolution basically means transmogrification of species like land fish to bird. New coding is scientifically impossible without future dna splicing
We don't know therefore my preferred explanation for which there is no evidence is correct. That's called an argument from ignorance, it's a logical fallacy. Which means that the argument is invalid as that is the entire argument.
Excellent! I love it when people root out logical fallacies!
The day the sun rises from the WEST, everybody will eventually accept that there is a God, but to no avail...
1913 wasn't a very good year. 1913 gave us the income tax, the 16th amendment and the IRS. -- Ron Paul
A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. -- Ron Paul
All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. -- Ron Paul
Another term for preventive war is aggressive war - starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us. That is not part of the American tradition. -- Ron Paul
As recent as the year 2000 we won elections by saying we shouldn't be the policemen of the world, and that we should not be nation building. And its time we got those values back into this country. -- Ron Paul
Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces. -- Ron Paul
Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened. -- Ron Paul
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. -- Ron Paul
Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion way from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. -- Ron Paul
Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. -- Ron Paul
Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts. -- Ron Paul
Have you noticed the debt is exploding? And it's not all because of Medicare. -- Ron Paul
Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. -- Ron Paul
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution. -- Ron Paul
I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card. -- Ron Paul
I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. -- Ron Paul
I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest. -- Ron Paul
I will always vote what I have promised, and always vote the Constitution, as well as I will not vote for one single penny that isn't paid for, because debt is the monster, debt is what's going to eat us up and that is why our economy is on the brink. -- Ron Paul
If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live. -- Ron Paul
In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. -- Ron Paul
Just think of what Woodrow Wilson stood for: he stood for world government. He wanted an early United Nations, League of Nations. But it was the conservatives, Republicans, that stood up against him. -- Ron Paul Justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense. -- Ron Paul
Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense. -- Ron Paul
Of course I've already taken a very modest position on the monetary system, I do take the position that we should just end the Fed. -- Ron Paul
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy. -- Ron Paul
Prices are going up. Unemployment is continue to go up. And we have not had the necessary correction for the financial bubble created by our Federal Reserve system. -- Ron Paul
Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. -- Ron Paul
The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. -- Ron Paul
The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. -- Ron Paul
The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. ---- Ron Paul
There is nothing wrong with describing Conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained. -- Ron Paul
There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it. -- Ron Paul
There's nothing wrong with being a Conservative and coming up with a Conservative believe in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and we don't go to war so carelessly. -- Ron Paul
Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. -- Ron Paul
To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to conserve our Constitution. -- Ron Paul
War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. -- Ron Paul
What is not conservative about saying, 'Don't go to war unless we go to war properly with a full declaration of war and no other way?' -- Ron Paul
When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads. -- Ron Paul
When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans. -- Ron Paul
You don't have freedom because you are a hyphenated American; you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected. -- Ron Paul
You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws. -- Ron Paul
Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -- Alan Kay
Premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it)in programming. -- Donald Knuth
Lisp has jokingly been called "the most intelligent way to misuse a computer". I think that description is a great compliment because it transmits the full flavor of liberation: it has assisted a number of our most gifted fellow humans in thinking previously impossible thoughts. -- Edsger Dijkstra, CACM, 15:10
Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. -- Mark Twain
What Paul does, and does very well, is to take ideas and concepts that are beautiful in the abstract, and brings them down to a real world level. That's a rare talent to find in writing these days. -- Jeff "hemos" Bates, Director, OSDN; Co-evolver, Slashdot
Since programmers create programs out of nothing, imagination is our only limitation. Thus, in the world of programming, the hero is the one who has great vision. Paul Graham is one of our contemporary heroes. He has the ability to embrace the vision, and to express it plainly. His works are my favorites, especially the ones describing language design.
He explains secrets of programming, languages, and human nature that can only be learned from the hacker experience. This book shows you his great vision, and tells you the truth about the nature of hacking. -- Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto, creator of Ruby
To follow the path: look to the master, follow the master, walk with the master, see through the master, become the master. -- Modern zen Poem
No problem should ever have to be solved twice. -- Eric S. Raymond, How to become a hacker
Attitude is no substitute for competence. -- Eric S. Raymond, How to become a hacker
It is said that the real winner is the one who lives in today but ableto see tomorrow. -- Juan Meng, Reviewing "The future of ideas" by Lawrence Lessig
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Alan J. Perlis (Epigrams in programming)
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. -- Alan J. Perli
i see a lot of triggered atheists by saying natural selection is not random
the problem is that natural selection is not the primary mover of evolution
but rather it is random mutation
because randomness by definition is we know the cause but the cause is blind
but chance if we say something happened by chance we don't deny the causation but we say we are ignorant of it
a good book for that is "not by chance"
and also the original material that natural selection works on is random (since it is random mutation) because natural selection doesn't add anything it is just a filtration mechanism
so yes it is random
and the atheists were saying he doesn't understand lol
//the problem is that natural selection is not the primary mover of evolution//
Yes it is, because the only way to pass your genes on to your offspring is if you survive. A random mutation means nothing if the organism does not survive.
@King Saldua Most certainly it can happen, it DID happen, and we ARE mammals equal to every other animal, this includes lizards.
@King Saldua Please stay in your country where the majority of you doofuses believe in a magical sky daddy
@@Dan-Martin magical sky daddy is still by far the most realistic explanation you doofus
@@panslawista Ahahahahahahahahaha
Can anyone explain the fact that there is still soft tissue in bones being found, saying these were once dinosaurs. If dinosaurs existed millions of years ago why is there soft tissue? The soft tissue could literally be stretched as well. Though I understand someone may not know, come up with a hypothesis and tell me. I just don’t want some nasty comments accusing me of anything because I believe in God, our lord and savior.
Respectfully what point are you trying to make? That dinosaurs didn’t evolve 230 million years ago or is it something else?
@@achimpanzee9210 It is the old nudge nudge wink wink - not having any real thought behind it
@@eniszita7353 you right
We are all searching. I know for sure I am searching for meaning outside of myself.
this triggered me
That's good, bro. We need to be triggered sometimes.
I feel ya bro...that guy is an idiot.
Everything triggers atheists
This is called argument from personal incredulity. Which is in no way related to science. The scientific process is just fine with the answer 'we don't know' to issues that well, we don't know. Like bio genesis. For millennia humans did not know where birds migrated to in the winter. Now we know. The same thing may happen with many of these questions.
In the same way, christians should feel no shame in not knowing all the answers to common atheist rebuttals, we simply don't know. And that's okay. Doesn't mean the worldview becomes entirely discredited because they happen to not have an answer.
The thing is, you/we will never know how life and the universe came into existence using pure materialistic science. The bird analogy here is disingenuous.
@@azmagaref You have no way of knowing what you just claimed...and regardless is no reason to assume any "god" _did_ anything or even exists.
@@julianmanjarres1998 No,vtheir worldview is discredited due to the lack of evidence for them to be able to support their faith.
@@flashoftruth
There's every reason to believe in purpose, design and creation behind every *THING* in existence. Believing otherwise is just pure lunacy.
The evolutionary process must play out as follows if it was a reality. The individual atoms that form the body (that is lifeless matter) of the animal must possess a consciousness to be aware of what the body is, and be aware of the 'life' that is within the form/body. They must be self-aware of not only themselves, but their fellow atoms within the form/body. They must be aware of what life is and perceive the life within the form they compose. They must also be aware of what a healthy life is and what a life under stress is, and care whether it survives or not. They must also be aware of the external environment, what it should be in order to be healthy for the life within the body, and what changes it must have gone through in order to cause the stress of the life within the body, which means the atoms must also be monitoring both the life's condition, and the changing conditions of the external environment (and its effects on the body and life). The atoms must also be aware of what changes they must make to the lifeless atom-made form/body in order to restore health to the life (grow more hair in reaction to a colder environmental change). Now for the body to change form its DNA must change within its reproductive system to bring the corrective change, New information, new atoms for new genes, need to come from somewhere and be put in the right sequence within the reproductive DNA strand to bring the corrective change of growing more hair, needing to know what hair actually is in the first place, or why they are acting in a pro-life direction with the mutations, which requires, as does the rest of this, a consciousness present, which is the point that renders the evolutionary theory extinct, and shows the character of abortion as an abomination. It is obvious that all of these necessary conditions are not just impossible, but far and away from reality. Atoms do not possess their own consciousnesses, they cannot move, they cannot find new atoms for new genes somewhere and plug them into the correct position within the DNA strand, they are not self-aware. But this is exactly what they must be, and be able to do, if the Evolution theory is to play out. Impossible, impossible, impossible. This 'theory' inadvertently proves God's existence. When it is run backwards, and ends up arriving at the first atom in the evolutionary progression, the only two answers explaining where it came from are 1) coming from nothing or, 2) It had to be created out of nothing-by God. Since something cannot come from nothing the answer must be it was created by God. Ending the existence of the evolutionary theory.
I’m ganna be honest… I did not read all that till I got to the last part.
@@creamycold1681 ?
@@harryrussell154 oh don’t worry I was agreeing with the part about God. I’m a creationist believer
Something cannot come from nothing so it had to be created from nothing . Yes ok.
@@cheapsuit1234 NO. It has to be created by a creator. Because there was nothing there in the first place.
A pot is created 'from' a clay lump, implying there was the lump in existence before the pot. Nothing can come from, or be created from, nothing. A small point in semantics I agree, but those presenting as fact the evolutionary process depend on small semantically similarly sounding, unrelated points to bluff their way through.
Darwin didn't want for a God to exist? Mate Darwin was a believer, he had that it saddened him that his research proved contrary to what he believed
He actually abandoned his belief for the most part as a result of his findings and because of his daughter Anne's untimely death at the age of 10...Darwin would walk his wife Emma, who was very troubled by Charles' lack of faith, to church on Sunday mornings...and just keep on walking...his conflict with his faith troubled him until his death.
Darwin basically said there are two things that are true: One is that everything dies, and things die for no reason and to no apparent end. And their death is painful. And, that process of living and dying produces something amazing and beautiful and astonishing.
And, Darwin himself writes, "There is grandeur in this view of life...from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
every comment section has some fool acting like authority in a certain line. Imagine that guy in real life. Too many google and youtube Phds.
What if they are an authority though?
Why?
@@flashoftruth why not?
"every comment section has some fool acting like authority in a certain line"
Yep, and 99 times out of 100 it will be a theist.
@King Saldua "base rate fallacy"
Nope, spot on reality.
Yeah, I don't believe one bith that this guy is an atheist or scientist.
He’s talking about another scientist. Actually listen next time
@JJR But this guy isn't claiming he's an ex-atheist, if anything I'm arguing he's one, so I'm not sure what your point is.
The problem is you can’t say but who created the universe as a rebuttal if you are religious because then you have to ask who created the creator ? Which creates the same problem. In other words it’s hypocritical to say but who created the universe to debunk evolution, but not debunk the idea of a super natural creator, as that would also need a creator and involved zero scientific or rational thought.
Well there has to be something that created everything. Even if it can't be explained as what to created that.
There is nothing "hypocritical" nor problematic about asking what comes before something else.
It's no different than asking what is a human made of? First you would say organs and parts. Then what are those made of? tissue and cells. Then what are those made of? You would continue in this fashion through molecules and atoms until possibly encountering a form of matter that can no longer be broken down to smaller parts and thus conclude that that thing is the first building block of all other things.
It would be the same with nature and a Creator. If we did discover a supernatural being we could ask what created it, and continue on down the line just like we would with material things until we find a deity or concept that is no longer made of other things but rather is what originates all things, that would be the Prime Mover, the Creator, God.
I am not religious at all, I believe in a creator but am not religious at all. And the reason why you ask who created the creator is simply a meaningless question. You don't understand that the creator would automatically have to be outside of our space time dimension. Any and every physicists who understand even the most basic quantum physics would tell you the same. Your question is foolish or meaningless because you cant refer to the entity that created the very dimension of time. Before that being created time there was no yesterday, today or tomorrow. There was no past. So the very word "created" is meaningless. The word is the PAST tense of the word create. Before the creator created the time dimension nothing could be referred to as the past. Which means if I told you that god x created god y who created god x, you can't ask who came Before the other. Time doesn't exist for both gods so it is impossible for one to come before the other.
The best way I love to explain this is by using an example of a tesseract. That is a cube of equal dimension inside another cube of exactly the same dimensions (l×w×h). Both of them are inside each other at the same time. This is impossible in our 3 dimensional world but is a mathematically proven in string theory.
Just like a tesseract exists in a 4 dimensional world, a creator can exist, uncreated outside of our linear time flow.
So please don't ask that foolish question again. I know idiots like Richard Dawkins likes throwing out that rubbish but it is illogical bullshit any two bit scientist can answer.
I believe that just as a line starts from a dot same way this all ought to have been created by something/someone who was never created and I believe that being responsible for all we see, know and love is God.
I believe energy creates everything.
I have always believed we have a God or some superior being simply because of the universe in and of itself. Not even to mention LIFE on the planet. I feel God had to create it because you don't get something from nothing. Even if you say well these molecules or atoms appeared out of nowhere because it's random or chance, etc., God or some superior being had to make those molecules or atoms or otherwise they wouldn't exist. Then God would have had to say, let the chance happen to make the universe. You simply can't get something where there has been absolutely nothing.
More common sense than the entire population of evolutionists combined. They simply cannot reason. Something had to come first. And this video nails it. They simply do not want to believe in, acknowledge or worship God in any way for any reason. They turn their backs on their Creator. They are all led by Satan who inspired their atheistic religion, whether they know it or not. I am looking forward to the day when all the denial and the lying will have to stop. Then the nations will have to know that he is JEHOVAH.
Good lord I could write a thesis on everything wrong with this comment
This man underestimates how long a billion years is, let alone 4 and 13 billion years are. That said, it isn't random, imagine that you have a collection of sheep, now breed those who have the traits you want, may it be their cuteness or fluffiness. So you only let the cutest one breed and have children, if you continue to do so the sheep will get cuter and cuter. I haven't heard anyone disprove that. And in nature, the Shepard is the nature itself which works in an indirect way, the sheep may need to grow fluffier to stay warm during harsh and cold winters and so the ones with the thicker fur have a higher chance of surviving and passing on their genes. Again, simple biology and no one disproves this, but why can not small changes become large ones with enough time? The first feathers looked like some sort of strange hairs and they evolved into the feathers of a peacock, yes it is still a feather but the point is that with enough time, large changes are inevitable.
Edit: One atheist doesn't speak for all of us, the only common factor between any two atheists is that they do not believe in a God. An atheist who believes in spirits and ghouls and such things is just as much of an atheist as someone who doesn't as ghouls and spirits aren't gods. Please don't lump us all together like this, it's like saying that all religions are the exact same because they believe in a or multiple gods. So by that logic, there is no difference between Christianity and Hinduism, both belief in a or multiple Gods. That is the exact logic you use against us. And why does the origin of life play any role in evolution at all? Evolution *only* and I mean ONLY cares about living organisms such as you and I.
The evidence of life doesn't require religion. The start of life does require much explanation even when one is presented with such dilemma in the shortfall of presenting information. Theories based on "what we have found" are bullshit and so are "fact checkers"
This comment deserves way more than 6 likes
But they will still remain sheep and their origin is through a sheep ancestor and not some water droplet lmao what your mentioning is adaptation not evolution theory which claims everything can come from nothing lol
why does the origin of life play any role in evolution at all? because for anything to evolve it has to originate somewhere first. Did you seriously ask that question or was that a mistake?
@@khan199304 What’s it like being such a simple minded fool?
So it's complicated, therefore god? It's exhausting trying to explain something to someone that doesn't want to learn.
But do you have an answer
@@johnnyboy1586 an answer to what?
How something came from nothing
How something came from nothing
@@johnnyboy1586 well, that's kinda an ironic case of special pleading doncha think? Something from nothing is a modern term immortalised by krause, and often interpreted very poorly to the point that the interpretation is often completely wrong even by those that study science. Second would be that there's a difference between a mathematical or material nothingness, and a philosophical nothingness. Ppl often argue for the philosophical nothing when trying to debunk the big bang for instance.
When krause is describing something from nothing, he is describing the field fluctuations and virtual particles at the quantum level. According to the math as best that we understand it, even in the absence of real particles, the fields themselves are unstable and will eventually produce real particles. I don't pretend to understand it either, that's just the cliffs notes version.
However a disconnect arises where some creationists attempt to reconcile the accepted science with the biblical word, things like "there was nothing and then god spoke and we have seven days of creation." There's actually a very strong disconnect there in that the earliest translations of genesis say the earth was already in existence, but was dark, or void. "Void" may even be a Greek inspired translation but I'll leave that to historians to weigh in on.
Now to tie the whole thread together, no one knows exactly how everything got started, or even if there is anything we could recognise as a true begining of everything, or even anything. So automatically attributing an unknown, to another unknown or supernatural phenomenon or something else that can't be proven,ames about as much sense as blaming the wind on angry pixies. Which ppl did for centuries before we knew what the wind actually is and figured out how it works.
creationists always use the argument of disbelief/selective citations.
From plankton to human wow 😂😂😂
It’s about as ridiculous as being molded out of mud
It's high time science accepts consciousness is independent of matter.
Science will accept it as soon as you can give scientific proof for that bold claim.
@@micarobin4663 consciousness is independent of matter and science deals with matter so there will never be a "scientific proof" for consciousness.
@@bhaktiyogadivine7295 No, science does not exclusively deal with matter, I dont know where you got that definition from. And again you claim something without proof. How do you want to know that conciousness is independent of matter? Pretty much every observation we made so far was that the construct of consciousness is directly dependent on matter. If you are interested in more Info you might like to look into behavioural biology
@@Acim248 study Advait Vedanta if u wanna broaden your perspective.
//It's high time science accepts consciousness is independent of matter.//
No it isn't...everything that exists is matter.
Everyone will get a chance to know God and many will deny him.
*666*
Zeus told me he already knows more than enough humans.
I mean, which God are we talking about here? There are literally thousands of them, so you gotta be more specific
@@MetallicPetals Well you do that by studying them and comparing them. Just because there are alot of religions doesnt mean that there is no truth to it. Just like for an example if you take a test and there are multiple answers to a question, you can only pass the test when you answer the right answers to the questions. So you have to study them and compare them and ofcourse i know nobody got time to compare 3000 religions, but i would advice you to look at the biggest of them and comparing them, because in these days every moron can start a religion for their own personal benifit. Another advice is, just ask god to help you find the truth, just try it, you have nothing to lose only to gain.
@@voetbalmeester1 But which God do I talk to? That's the issue here, too many to ask as you said, and I simply won't just ask the most popular one, the amounts of followers doesn't mean that said God becomes anymore real
Yes let’s use a flawed and old theory to disprove evolution!
@Elliott Rayon you troglodyte lol. I’m talking about evolution. I’m Christian but also believe in natural sciences. Also just because we don’t know the origins of life doesn’t mean god lmao. You’re an idiot.
@Elliott Rayon I can argue with your idiotic concepts all day. You’re one of the dumbest people I’ve met in a while.
@Elliott Rayon let’s disassemble a watch and put all the necessary components into a tumbler. According to this man and evolution it should eventually reassemble itself back into a perfectly working watch just by chance of it rolling around in all its necessary parts. But even then, that would still prove that an intelligent being was necessary to make all those parts in the first place. Notice how enraged and scared he and others get when you attack their evolution religion.
@@imsavor evolution isn’t a religion lol. No one gets scared of Bible thumping weirdos on the internet
@Elliott Rayon at the time it was a theory because it was a completely new science. How do you not understand that? People always bring up Darwin but they don’t bring up what we actually know now which tells me you and your weird ideology’s are actually scared of learning new things and being proven wrong
Darwin never knew genetics existed. Mendel never observed DNA. We just don't know enough to answer those questions YET. Believing there is a creator just because we don't know an answer to a question is illogical.
Evolution is based on an argument from personal credulity, where a person accepts a theory too eagerly without examining it in greater depth. According to evolutionary theory, complexity is generated by random mutation - the role of natural selection is only to preserve it . To say that evolution is not random is like saying that winning the lottery is not random - because the part where you go to collect your winnings is not random! Theistic evolution and atheistic evolution are both systems of belief that cloud objective thinking. Find out more at www.lifewithoutevolution.uk
I dont understand the metaphor, but yeah evolutions not exactly random because the mutations are often meaningful adaptations.
It's not just genes going haywire.
Evolution isn't a system of belief either. Theres tons of evidence if you'd like me to provide some.
The word i think alot of people are missing is chance :)
Chance is the part of the equation that is completely baseless. In the context of the overwhelmingly complex reality, its just a synonym for “random”
Ok...and...?
Because the part that is completely baseless is a "god/creator", not that life came about by chance.
@L John Please define "complexity"?
@L John DNA is not an "intelligently created code", it just _is._ There is no reason to believe it has been "guided". When water flows down a hill, nothing _guides_ it, it just flows. To the untrained eye, it may appear that something has "guided" it along its path, but flow water down the same hill again, and it will take a slightly different path. Nothing guided it differently, but small variations in the path caused the water to flow differently, randomly...this is the same for DNA and offspring. Each new generation is slightly different than its parent[s], sometimes the change is significant, sometimes its not, sometimes it's beneficial, sometimes it isn't, and the way that the variation functions in the organism's environment through natural selection then decides whether the organism will survive and reproduce or not.
Beneficial mutations I guess you could consider as "adding complexity", but even so, this is not a "guided" process, again, it just "is".
@L John In other words...is a giraffe that has adapted a longer neck than its parents more "complex" than its parents? I'd say "no"...it's just evolved a more beneficial trait that will allow it to survive better and be able to pass on its genes.
@L John Wow, that is a lot to unpack there, which I will do soon. I just got to Las Vegas and am going to work, I will reply properly when I can. 😎
The duck billed platypus.
Explosions destroy things.
Never in history has an explosion created anything, let alone living organisms.
What do explosions have to do with evolution?
From the atheist worldview point??
@@JFK-ir7yz Last I checked the only thing atheists agree on is the nonexistence of gods, not whether if evolution is true...
But lets assume that all atheist believe in evolution, what does explosion have to do with evolution?
The atheist world view.
No Creation.
Big Bang “theory”.
Evolution.
You need to check again.
@@JFK-ir7yz alright... you still haven't answered... what does explosion has to do with evolution?
Humans and animals are VERY different.
Humans ARE animals.
Humans are primates
@@IIrandhandleII Which makes them animals.
We're just smarter (some of us)....our intelligence doesn't mean we are not animals
@@IIrandhandleII "Great apes" to be precise.
We do not have an explanation for the origin of life nor a full understanding of how the complete complexity of life emerged from its humble beginnings, therefore God.
God of the Gaps/Appeal to Ignorance rhetoric as always.
God informs my scientific search. I don't stuff him into gaps. As soon as I discover his absence, I will be the first to dump him. Until then, being a God-believer does not hinder my search in any way, shape or form. And it is very unscientific of you to suggest that it does.
Craig Long I addressed the comments made in this video, which is a God of the Gaps/Appeal to Ignorance perspective. Unless you are the speaker in the video, I made no comment about your personal view on things. Are you the speaker in the video?
Are you suggesting that argument be limited to a video? Argument of the Gaps. Again - very unscientific.
Craig Long I am suggesting that all arguments are limited to the topics they cover, and do not apply to the subjects they do not address.
Perhaps when you are done trolling, we can move on to more useful things.
Hmm. So, when someone calls you out, it's trolling. Let me guess: when someone agrees with you, do you call him an ally? Come now, snowflake - man up. I was not trolling - I was expressing a very valid, clear, and relevant idea.
Thomas nagel mind and cosmos
Anyone who thinks evolution needs to explain the ORIGIN of life automatically disqualifies themselves as being worthy of being listened to.
Finally! Someone that understands the difference!!!
Yes there is a difference, but to my knowledge atleast, what is being suggested is that the evolutionary theory doesn’t give any plausible ways to originate life for said life to them evolve
@@SQUISHBUBBLE Evolutionary theory isn't supposed to give any ways - plausible or otherwise - to originate life. That's not its job. You might as well complain that it doesn't cook your breakfast or explain why pi has the value it does.
@@SQUISHBUBBLE because evolution deals with life, it doesn't say anything about non life because it doesn't apply.
That's why abiogenesis is its own field of study. The reason it is it's own field of study becomes a question of what life is, and what is alive and is not? In between would be a murky transition of abiotic chemicals that can both affect their immediate environment, engage in self synthesis, but also not have a property of genetic coherence or inheritability. These molecules of chemicals would be able to select but also be able to replicate by themselves, they would needs a medium or catalyst to facilitate further reactions and assist in replication. It's complicated in a way, but rest not all that complicated in theory.
and yet despite the flaws abiogenesis carry it is still the foundation on which evolution sits as the next stage (stage 2 if you will), without it there is no evolution to take place 🙄.
So basically you don’t understand actual science. Got it 👍🏽
God is a fact!
"God is a fact!"
- define 'God' and substantiate it is fact...
@@michaelanderson7715 is evolution a fact ? Can something be created from nothing a fact? Isn't Jesus a fact? Isnt the bible a fact. Prove to me God is not real! you being here is evidence God is real. We was created from nothing really?
@@atajoseph Do you have an answer to what I asked ?
@@michaelanderson7715 The universe must have a cause! the most fundamental law of science is the law of cause and effect! for every material effect we see there is a cause that come before it, or was simultaneous to it, and that is greater than it!
The universe is a material effect, so what cause the universe? MUST BE GOD! Makes more sense than a singularity "something that popped into existence from nothing". Empty your hands and watched them, close them and reopened them. LET ME KNOW IF NOTHING MAKES SOMETHING!
@@atajoseph You have still not answered what I asked.
"God is a fact!"
- define 'God' and substantiate it is fact...
Those arguments are so good, if an atheist says that evolution doesn't exist it must mean that it doesn't exist. I'm convinced evolution doesn't exist. I love Jesus. And F*** penguins
00:47:00
"...there are at least two things that atheists and Darwinists simply cannot explain. The first is the origin of life from non-living matter..."
Science currently has no theory to explain the origin of life. There are a few hypotheses including so-called "abiogenesis". But then nobody at all knows the origin of life, whether it came from non-living matter or not. It may be that we'll never know. So what?
Correction: abiogenesis isn't a hypothesis. It's an observation, a study of the origins of life. We pretty much assume life arose from non-living matter just by way of recognizing that a) life is comprised of the same material as everything else and b) that the category of life itself is difficult to pin down and there are many examples of things which aren't typically thought of as living, yet share some of the qualities of we use to categorize life e.g. viruses. What we don't know is _how_ exactly life could have developed. It's a long and chemically complex processes with many steps that have to be accounted for. We can demonstrate how some of those steps may have happened, but the larger ones like RNA and DNA are still mysterious. That's where the hypothesizing comes in with things like RNA world.
@@janos6644 faith helps life?!?! That's not true at all. We have faith because of emotions? I know people that praise God and have almost nothing to he happy about. You think every believer is just running around in cloud nine happy because life has some kind of new purpose?!?! It's called faith because we choose to believe it. Not because it makes us feel good.
@@Drew-hd4hm bro actually it does i was in depression and emotionally becoming numb and then i started worshiping as my last way and i thought that if this is not going to work I'll give up my life but No god helped me and here i am today
Nor do we need any such thing. Evolution is a totally separate phenomenon. As to Abiogenesis, what we DO see in lab supports the shit out of it. And no "god" ever showed up or DID ANYTHING!! Also, the whole bible is wrong fictional lies. Every book is kiddie book nonsense. And nothing happened that it says happened. Even jesus has zero evidence. No "creation", instead big bang, then a LOT later, solar planetary formation, Evolution, No adam and eve, we Evolved from African apes. No "Flood", proved impossible a long time ago, No exodus, moses never existed, Egypt had NO hebrew slaves, it was all fiction.
@@samuelstephens6904 "What we don't know is how exactly life could have developed. It's a long and chemically complex processes with many steps that have to be accounted for."
Don't you see the hypocritical contradiction in this statement??
First you say we don't know, which is correct, then you go on, explaining it the way you would LIKE to believe, but you have zero evidence for this.
Life is not created by chemical processes as much as robots are not created by lightening striking trash heaps, even when there are fully functioning robot parts available. You can wait forever, may it be billions of years, it simply will not happen, unless you watch some Walt Disney movies. Please, this is ludicrous. Not even considering that the robot must be able to replicate itself, find energy etc. - This is also true for "primitive cells", which do not exist btw. - but when this evolution theory was developed, science did not know anything about the complexity of a small cell, they rather imagined them to be empty shells, filled with liquid.
You can't just say "ItS nOawt PosSiBLe, TwooO cOMpwex 🥺" we know how these thing work, and where they came from. Just because the brain is complex that doesn't mean there's a god. Your lack of understanding or beliefs don't matter, these are completely understood, unequivocally true facts.
Yeah sure. And if you have enough time you will also roll the dice 10.000 times to get a simple result like 100 times a six in a row, right? (Which is nothing in comparision to create something which is alive, thinking and rolling dice itself, right?)
There are limits to chance and modern mathematics has proven them very accurately. Just modern science is not honest enough to apply this knowledge to the nonsense theory of evolution. They might also tell you that if you wait long enough, on a scrapyard there will be a self-replicating robot, coming to existence by mere forces of nature, as radiation, heat or a lightening strike.
This is material for fairytales, but not for science.
@@diekritischestimme athiests believe that God is a myth so they don't have moral accountability. That's it.
Imagine there being sounds in the universe and after billions of years of chaos & collisions the complex music notes of Behtoven are assembled on a sheet of paper. That's how evolution sounds like to me when explaining the origin of life...Hahah
I’d respect people who believe in Evolution if they’d just admit they don’t want to believe in a Higher Power. But lying and deceiving others in public schools that the taxpayer funds? At least be objective and show both views. No name calling. Let people see every side and let them decide what they want to believe. Just. Be. Honest.
bOTh SidEs
@@flammmenspeeryt9184 🤣🤣🤣 very tolerant and open minded ^^^^ 🤣
@@oopartsw911 science is open minded BUT ya have to prove whqt you are saying. And you can'r
@@flammmenspeeryt9184 neither can you. No one was there at the beginning. Therefore, nothing having to deal with that topic should be regarded as fact. Both sides. Duh
@@oopartsw911 we don’t claim what happened at the beginning. Just google big bang and read that, thanks
Organized complexity is exactly what an iterative feedback process like evolution ought to produce.
There is no 'ought' in evolution.
@@RS54321 Didn't say there was.
@@lizd2943 You did in your initial comment.
@@RS54321 In the sense of that's what we should expect to see, and we do.
@@lizd2943 Semantics and changing words. You can't expect anything from an unguided process. It's akin to saying 'things evolved b/c we can see evolution' it's circular reasoning.
His brain is stupefied by its own complexity, so it judges itself as naturally impossible. That's a hell of a roundabout way to make yourself feel special.
*PLAIN, CLEAR, AND OBVIOUS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE INTELLECT*
YA *ALLAH* FORGIVE ME FOR MY SINS ❤️
//PLAIN, CLEAR, AND OBVIOUS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE INTELLECT //
Uh, no it is not, and that is an intellectually dishonest thing to claim and most definitely not scientific or logical.
@yazed alblwi So, you are "sane" and the 1000s of scientists that specialize in evolutionary biology and all of its related fields of study are all lying, insane, and involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever seen right?
Before I address your _issues,_ could you please answer these questions? It will give me a better understanding of who I am dealing with.
Can you please define "evolution"?
Can you please provide citations for your claims?
How many evolutionary biology classes have you taken?
How many evolutionary biologists have you conversed with?
Where did you get your degree?
Can you tell us the process of how a hypothesis becomes a theory?
What are the odds of something happening AFTER it has already happened?
___
@yazed alblwi //hydrolytic sorting shows that the layers in the Earth are proven to have been put there by water.//
"Put there" suggests a conscious act, water has no brain, the layers "ended up there"...and what does this have to do with evolution?
//dinosaur death pose//
What about it?
//mitochondrial eve//
Debunks "Adam and...", and what does this have to do with evolution?
//the vostok ice core samples//
What about them?
//second law of Thermodynamics entropy//
What about it, and what does this have to do with evolution?
//giant ice wolf head and dogs prove microevolution is damage control.//
How so?
//macro evolution has never been seen//
Yes it has, we are an example.
//anything with the chance of happening of one to the 50th power is considered scientifically absurd...//
According to whom, and what does this have to do with evolution?
//meanwhile our blood coalesces at odds of 1 to the 270 millionth power.//
Ok...and what does this have to do with evolution?
//aliens are demons//
lol...ok...and what does this have to do with evolution?
//Nephilim bones//
No such thing, but what does this have to do with evolution?
//human DNA is level six complexity.//
Ok, what does that mean? Who came up with the "levels"?
//only level two can be achieved by accidental chemistry.//
Says who, and what does this have to do with evolution?
//consciousness itself. being separate from the body.//
What about it, and what does this have to do with evolution?
//the Fibonacci sequence.//
What about it, and what does this have to do with evolution?
//fractals.//
What about them and what does this have to do with evolution?
//incredibly complex ecosystems that are interdependent.//
What about them?
//10 human organs that rely on each other to function defy your ideas of Macro evolution.//
No they don't.
//human and dinosaur footprints together.//
Hoaxes and straight up bullshit: ncse.ngo/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown But what does this have to do with evolution?
//human and dinosaur living together carvings and statues.//
Horseshit, but what does this have to do with evolution?
//chlorophyll on T-Rexes tooth shows that most dinosaurs like iguanodon were vegetarian.//
Iguanodon was, T-Rex were carnivores.
//live red blood cells found in the Horn of a dinosaur meaning that it was alive less than 2,000 years ago.//
No it wasn't.
//oceanic trench and Continental Beach heads prove the movement of pangea to modern configuration because of the flood.//
wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution?
//272 civilizations out of account of the flood that were not influenced by the Bible (haven't heard of it)//
Wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution?
//sea life and sediments on all mountain tops of the world which would require a minimum of 100 feet of water above.//
Wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution?
//ice Age was literally caused by the flood.//
Wrong, but what does this have to do with evolution?
//if you believe in a big bang then you have to wonder where did the heavy elements and stars come from in the first place and why did they explode and how come no explosions ever in the history of mankind have ever created something that they only destroy.//
I "accept" the big bang. Yes, we do wonder. The big bang was not an "explosion", but what does this have to do with evolution?
//creation of fossils are extremely rare and form best underwater ergo to the flood.//
"Ergo" nothing.
//going Evolution natural selection implies intelligence.//
No it doesn't.
//entropy states that we're going to a state of disorder which means that we were once put together neatly.//
"Put together" is intellectually dishonest and begging the question.
//that is entirely opposite of the belief of evolution. the laws of nature prove evolution is a lie.//
No it isn't, no it doesn't, evolution is a fact.
//many of your prominent atheists have begun to admit that it seems we may have been put here by aliens because that the only intelligent source they can admit to.//
No they haven't, you are lying.
//mutations are obviously bad.//
Wrong.
//take a complex computer program for example like our DNA and just keep removing and scrambling the binary and see how many programs you have that still work.//
Our DNA is not like a computer program, just because you do not understand evolution does not in any way affect the theory being a fact.
You claim to be "sane" yet demonstrate you being anything but...
@yazed alblwi //these are popular objections against evolution//
Perhaps, but none hold water.
//well apparently evolution and the big bang was an "accident" or pretty much something that had a possibility and happened without any authority//
Ok...and?
//to say that our blood coalesces at such an absurd possibility, makes me question, if theres really something that created us//
An argument from incredulity is a fallacy...just because you don't know something, can't figure something out, or find something difficult to believe is NOT evidence for a "god" nor is it reason to assume an "authority" exists.
//its mathematically impossible for something with such an odd to have happend without any. single. authority.//
Apparently not.
//but where are these 1000 scientists?//
czcams.com/video/Ty1Bo6GmPqM/video.html
//where is any evidence of these 1000 scientists?//
czcams.com/play/PLpe6JzIXdqVF_8S817Tqx-GfOYGoWSHr5.html Take your pick...
//you shouldnt say "scientists" since the scientists who believe in evolution are a minority.//
No they aren't. There is no rational scientist that denies evolution.
//just go look up second law of thermodynamics and evolution//
Ok...and?
//Stated differently, an isolated system will always tend to disorder//
The problem is you just have no idea what you are talking about...you have your doubts, find something that aligns with your misconception, and then run with it...but that is just poor science. www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/does-thermodynamics-disprove-evolution
***
@yazed alblwi ////to bring up something which was never even intented to be taken as a point, or an argument in the first place, and apply a logical fallacy to the argument that mentiones the phrase, is just so dishonest..//
lol...the irony.
//this is probably one of the dumbest responses i have ever got//
To someone that is too stupid to understand just how stupid he is, I am certain it is...but it's still true.
//its not the we DONT KNOW, we surely do know that its MATHMATICALLY impossible for such an "incident" to occur//
No, no it's not.
//and as you know math can never be proved wrong//
What the fuck? Sure it can be.
//using binomial distrubutions which i doubt you have ANY idea about//
Ok, then what are the odds of something occurring AFTER it has already happened?
//as they are the most reliable distrubutions for possibility/probabality we could easily conclude that the evolution theory is impossible//
Wrong, obviously, because evolution is a fact.
//this gives even a further in detail answer//
_"Answers in fucking GENESIS"??????_ BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
//ill just make it clear that these scientists that try to push the agenda that evolution is a fact are NOT dumb//
Nope, but clearly you are.
No rational scientist denies evolution is a fact, no rational human being does.
The two most distinguished American palaeontologists of modern times, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, both demonstrated 30 years ago that one of Darwin's 2 main ideas was false. His second idea was eugenics and we all know how "well" that idea went.
Like fuck they did.
that is that idea?
Like bill gates the eugenist ?
@@tesakun3133 Derp.
@@tesakun3133 Citation please or just admit you pulled that right out of your foil hat wearin ass.
How is it that a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy can't recognize a textbook argument from incredulity?
0:28 "Random processes" The laws of physics aren't random. It's called "natural selection", not "random selection". Why don't you save the biology questions for a Professor of Biology.
There is no proof that the "natural selectors" sought out compatible "mates". That process was random. In that random process, there is a possibility that compatible forms bumped into each other and joined or influence the other or each. But, RANDOM ran the show. Inert chemicals did not purpose to find or join and if they did join or influence, it was random chance that made it happen
@@EmpoweredMarketingLLC natural selection is by definition non random...
@L John Rain doesn't think either... Yet
somehow it seems to always find its way to the ground.
@L John Yes. Natural selection doesn't explain how phenotypes are introduced. It explains how the frequency of advantageous or deleterious phenotypes naturally change in a population over time. Natural selection is only part of the evolutionary process. Natural selection is not random.
@L John "Natural selection is unguided. It's blind."
A rain drop is also blind, yet it always finds its way to the ground.
"Natural selection does not explain how origination of trait, which is the driving force of evolution."
An engine is the driving force behind a car. Yet a car isn't going anywhere without wheels. Evolution requires three things to work: selection, variation, and inheritance. All three are 100% necessary to make it work. Natural selection on its own isn't enough.
"Mutation does not explain the origination of the trait, b/c mutation has limitations."
That's like saying I can walk across the street but it's impossible to walk across the city. Your failure to imagine a thing is possible, has no bearing on reality. Incredulity is not an argument. And neither a computer nor a car can evolve (and any other inanimate object you wish to conjure up for comparison) because they lack all three of the required processes: selection variation, and inheritance.
It's always amusing that the people that can't get the 7th grade science right think they've out smarted all the Biologists.
There are still things we can not explain. We just have to work harder.
or accept the limits of our tiny human brains. These things are beyond knowing.
@@africanhistory maybe but how can you know that?
"If we can not explain things now, we better give up and just say God" that is how I feel like come religious people come off as
@yazed alblwi Basically, it feels as if many creationists of all religions want us to stop researching things if we can't figure out how it works instantly because we will never do it in the future so let's say God and move on. I really dislike that idea of thinking because if we did that, we wouldn't have computers and nothing of what we have today because scientists and inventors stared at a bunch of things and then tried things out and learned how stuff works and learned how to use it to their and societies advantage. How would that benefit us in any way, so if we don't know, why not study it harder to get a grasp of it?
How can one form life, what is life. If you can't define what life is with any understanding, how can you form it, even as we try to mimic it?
I don’t have a problem with the guy talking but he doesn’t understand the concept. Simple as that. Ask a real biologist or someone who’s profession is evolutionary biology.
@Elliott Rayon I didn’t see this reply until now but we do have a couple theory’s about where life came from. Further cementing that you don’t know what you’re talking about troglodyte.
@Elliott Rayon Nope, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the hypotheses of abiogenesis...and there are about 10 actually, but here are 7:
futurism.com/abiogenesis-7-scientific-theories-origin-life-one-new-one
@Elliott Rayon //But the theory of Evolution requires it//
All it requires is life, and I reiterate, it speaks nothing about how life got there nor takes anything away from the theory.
//any hypothesis other than a creator demands abiogenesis//
Ok...and?
//and no theory of something as absurd as the organic coming from inorganic proves otherwise.//
Does it matter how "absurd" it sounds to anyone if it's true? We have already recreated the building blocks for life in a lab, where will we be in 100 years? How about 1000? A little over 100 years ago in 1903 the Wright Brothers took their first flight, 2013 and we are talking about manned Mars missions. When we are able to form life, what will separate us from the gods? But regardless, we are not "creating" life or atoms, we are merely reforming it.
//So why are you pasting links to, quite possibly, the most silly theory ever created//
Because they aren't theories, they are hypotheses, and all still valid.
And you have a thing for _cement_ don't ya?
@@flashoftruth While Darwinian evolution only addresses biological evolution, the earlier chemical evolution is still needed. Saying there are about 10 different hypothesis tells you right there that they're just coming up with wild speculations. At least 9 have to be wrong, and that doesn't bode well for the 10th... As far as I know, nobody has redone the false Miller-Urey experiment using the actual chemical makeup of the atmosphere on Earth and gotten all the building blocks of life to form. That's very telling. Instead, man (an intelligence) sets up elaborate experiments to force certain things to happen, completely different than nature's own doing. And building blocks of life don't randomly assemble themselves into complex nano machines and information systems.
Add to all this, sentient lifeforms require consciousness. That doesn't come from matter. It's separate from matter and comes from elsewhere. Decades of research into after death experiences, past life memories, out of body experiences, etc. are completely ignored in evolution theory and abiogenesis. Creating theories based on ignorance and partial knowledge leads to false theories.
@@Elhardt Can you explain to us how a hypothesis becomes a theory?
An argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
@jae Pea Incorrect, an atheist does not argue that God does not exist. Atheism is not an argument, it's the rejection of a claim that is not supported by the evidence.
Think of ALL the gods that YOU do not believe exist...an atheist just believes at least 1 less god exists than you.
So, how does an argument from incredulity apply here exactly? Do you even know what an "argument from incredulity" is?
@jae Pea "well go ahead and twist the meaning of words"
WHAT have I "twisted"? You don't even know what the fuckin fallacy MEANS.
@jae Pea And if you are talking about the word "atheist", it is not my fault so many get it wrong, because THAT is but part of the problem.
@jae Pea Theist: someone that believes 1 or more gods exist.
Atheist: Someone who does not believe 1 or more gods exist.
Atheists do not believe any gods exist because there is not enough evidence to convince us any gods exist. It is not a claim that no gods exist, this includes Yahweh/Allah.
@jae Pea "you give a self defeating statement and try and defend it."
There is nothing to defend, and you cannot defend your willful ignorance on this matter. If you cannot accept the definitions of words and want to pretend they mean what you want them to that is fine, but that is ALL on you, not on me for providing the proper definition. It is a word that is unnecessary really, because I am sure there are many things that you do not believe exist, like Santa Claus right? Now, there are a lot of people that do not actually believe Santa exists right? How many "A-santas" do you know or have ever heard of? Has anyone ever called you an "Asantaist"? Of course not...so, why is there a word for those that do not believe any god exists except so that desperate theists like yourself can attempt to misrepresent it?
//or can you explain how matter comes from nothing?//
Nope.
Can you explain how a god makes it magically appear?
I have no reason to believe there has ever been "nothing", it makes sense that the materials that this universe consist of have always existed and are part of a "greater" Cosmos.
But "Cosmos" is not "god"...it's Cosmos...and this consists of everything that exists and has always existed, we have no reason to assume otherwise.
This man is absolutely right on point. And Thomas Nagel (author of the book he refers to) is a short book, but on point explanation of the 2 impossibilities that Darwinian evolution offers.
The universe, earth and life were created! The mathematical, biological, paleontological, and archeological evidence is massively pointing to that conclusion. IMO, to not acknowledge these main points - that Intelligent Design was required in all of the above - indicates either a lack of research on the subjects, or a closed mind to the overwhelming evidence in many disciplines (math, philosophy, science, etc).
So, you are an advocate for "ID"?
Please give one piece of evidence that’s points to a creator ?
@@kye4216 You are going to be waiting for a long, long while...
Speaking about problems with a theory...who Cane and Abel married with? Lmfao the irony
You answer.
abel never married, he was killed by Cain. the development of people on the earth was well on the way, which is why Cain got married when he went to a city called Nod, there was people living in that city, not everything is going to be spell out for you, read the bible for yourself.
@@endofdays7708
Got married WITH WHO?
There was no other people around! These are the sons of adam and eve.
It is so painfully obvious that the bible is bullshit eh
@@Aguijon1982 You must remember, Adam and Eve created many children and lived for hundreds of years. If eve created a child every year, and her genes are pure, even inbreeding will cause no problem because there are no sickness in the genes yet. Do you expect the Bible to list all people birthed by Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel may have been the first. Do you expect Adam to stop shagging with her wife when cain and abel were born? They most likely shagged a lot and populated the earth. But since the story's focus is on Cain and Abel, common sense dictates that Cain would have to shag one of her sisters, as he lived for hundreds of years as well. And since women gets pregnant as early as 13 years old, he has plenty of choices at that time.
@@Kopie0830
And they had black, asian and neanderthal kids too eh? :D
Yeah, sure pal. I think you need a new brain. You are hopelessly deluded.
-"The information in living things and the overwhelming of complexity of that information could not have been generated by natural laws and random processes."
Do you have any actual evidence that this is impossible? Or is this just an argument from personal incredulity? Complexity is a red herring. We know that the universe in general has many natural processes which moves things towards complexity. We can even recognize this in organic chemistry and how the building blocks of life can arise naturally. Likewise, these processes aren't random. That's also a dishonest bit of misleading. They are natural and deterministic. I can understand why your average Jill or Joe who goes to church on Sunday might say these things, but for apologists and people who have the time to make professional CZcams videos, there is absolutely no honest reason why they continue to roll out these PRATTs. They must know how wrong they are at this point.
-"there are at least two things Darwinsist and atheists cannot explain."
So what? Does not having an explanation for something mean there is justification to say that God accounts for it? Of course not. "Hey everyone! Magic did it!" The logic is just not sound.
-"Ever looked at the human brain? That thing's complicated."
We've got a real Einstein here.
@L John
-"LOL the human brain is not complex?"
Obviously, my sarcastic comment was meant to convey how trivial and useless a claim like "the human brain is really complex" is. Like, duh!
-"yes we have evidence that intelligence shows complexity and unguided systems do not create intelligence and complexity."
And what is this evidence? Surely "unguided systems" can produce complexity. Molecules can randomly interlock with each other to form compounds. Gravity can turn dispersed space dust into entire solar systems. Even a rock rolling down a hill into a pile of other rocks results in increased complexity since a pile of rocks + 1 more rock is by definition more complex than a pile of rocks. So this is a trivially easy claim to refute.
Why don’t you believe God exists Sam?
@@bobp1069 There are a bunch of different reasons that stack on top of each other. There’s a lack of compelling empirical evidence. God doesn’t seem like a necessary explanation for any phenomena in reality, let alone an adequate or satisfying one. The problem of evil. The entire idea of God, especially one who intervenes in reality on our behalf, seems exactly like the sort of thing the superstitious part of human nature would come up with. I could go on.
All Christians reading this, let not your heart resort to anger, but instead prey. This man clearly sees there must be a God, but doesn't want there to be one. Evolution really isn't supported by science or micro evolution. Add yeah, I have studied this, I'm not passively saying this. Check out Ken Ham's language of DNA for more. This proves evolution is only and excuse. Therefore pray, and your sins will be forgiven by Christ Jesus.
Well said. Now wait for God hating atheists to come in here and argue about how their fairytale of an ancient ape turning into a human is true.
@@thomas7571 Actually, I'll wait until somebody who actually understands evolution comes up with an intelligent objection to it.
You say evolution really isn't supported by science. Are you going to support these claims?
Because we can simply look up tons of videos on here that tell theories & show multitudes of evidence for us.
@@thomas7571
Humans are apes.
@@thomas7571 All right, first of all i do belive in creation beacuse there are just no other explanation for life. But evolution isnt "an ape magically turning into human". Imagine how breeding works, originally there were only wolfes but by allways selecting the wolfes/dogs with the desirable characteristics and only let them have offsprings we made a lot of types of diferent small wolfes. Wolfes didnt magically turned into pugs, it was a slow and long process. And this is how evolution/natural selection works, only its not humans but the enviroment wich makes the species change slowly, the enviroment also changes all the time and the animals wich had better characteristics by chance survive while others die, those who had those specific things like longer teeth or something also will only have babies with those longer teeth so the specie just changed a little bit. Pugs and borzois look very diferent but they both came from wolfes, from a shared ancestor thru a long process. Once long time ago this happened with the shared ancestors of humans and other apes, some specie developed long arms to climb and reach fruits, but an other branch by chance had some smarter than average members wich were more sucsesslfull than any other and even among them the smarter ones overcome the less smart ones, so the group thru millions of years allways got smarter while other species got stronger and eventually this group is became what we call today humans.
Accidents don't result in mathematical perfection. Accidents equal accidents. But failure is an intellectually driven attempt at accomplishing "something".
This Universe is not unspecified, random in its flow, or jagged and uneven.
The Holy Quran says that Allah made The Sun and The Moon and all of life to serve humanity. Which reinforces that it was human beings who proceeded Nature, and ultimately human beings (gods) who created Nature.
Go read the article on the people who planted The Amazon Rainforest. Read the article on the ancient nuclear reactor found in Africa. The Pyramids.
There is no incentive for monkeys or alleged primitive persons to achieve mastery of mathematics. There's an incentive to master environment/the jungle, but not to exceed that into cosmic interaction with the planets and stars, which is what The Pyramids do, they reflect Orion's Belt in near perfect chirality.
What can you tell us about Chaos theory?
The quran is as much lies and garbage as the bible.
@@rstevewarmorycom Agreed.
You forget to add one HUGE factor to your thoughts = TIME.
A rock becomes a smaller pebble after millions of years of erosion. Time is not your friend moron.
@@govitascom9610 you might want to consider sedimentary rock formation there chief.
GoVitasCom you also might want to take a class in probability
@@prathameshvarsriskandaraja1977 The probability of turning any form of inanimate matter into a living thing is ZERO, according to the Law of Biogenesis. You might want to ask a 5th grader about it. www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
@@nym1001 The probability of turning any of those inanimate sedimentary rocks into a living thing is ZERO, according to the Law of Biogenesis. Get educated. www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
Mind Blowing How So Many Ppl Are Scared Of The Fact Of God😭
@Loki The trickster you poor thing
Which "god" and how exactly is it a "fact"?
@@julianmanjarres1998 ...says the guy with at least 1 imaginary magic friend in the sky.
How many of you are terrified of Evolution and there being no "god" or heaven?
@@rstevewarmorycom Not Me.. And I Think It's Pretty Obvious As Well...Nothing Has Never Made Something....Most Likely You Never Seen The Builder Of Your House But Common Sense Will Tell You Somebody Had To Build Your House..I'm Sure You Don't Think That The House Built Itself? Let's Not Make This Difficult..So When We Transition To More Complex Things Let's Also Keep A Common Sense Type Outlook.. The Pyramids In Egypt For Example Have You Ever Seen The Builders?? But You Do Know Somebody(or people) Built It Right?? Look Around It's Obvious Everything That Was Ever Built Or Made Needs A Maker But Then We Start Talking About A More Bigger Project Being How The Earth Came To B People Just Throw Away There Common Sense Lol
This guy is more honest than most. He's not arrogant and hard headed like most of the atheists found under these videos. Man keeps it real. Respect.
He clearly is NOT an atheist, and I guess you don't care that he's full of shit?
how do people find it in themselves to believe that every living being came from one cell or whatever and not from one god. I'm religious and I would take more seriously someone who doesn't believe in both.
I can explain it to you. But first answer me: Do you really want to learn it or do you just want to stick with your religion?
@@flammmenspeeryt9184 this is not about religion, it's about believing and knowing something that does make sense to me but go ahead I'd love to hear what you go to say
@@abrahamnasiri7684 Hear it from me. I’m catholic but believe in evolution. Look at goosebumps. When your scared or cold your hair stands on end. When we had fur this would’ve made it look bigger and would’ve made us warmer. Our coxix is a lost remnant of a tail bone. Embryogenesis stages and what I believe is weeks 3-4 we have a tail. My links on CZcams get deleted because CZcams’s bots are basically the equivalent to nazis but I recommend you look up Darwin’s finches. This goes into natural selection and the Galapagos Finches rapidly evolving. I forgot the fishes names but they also grew in size in just a couple years. These are processes called rapid evolution.
@@achimpanzee9210 who told you I don't believe in evolution? but not in humans. on the surface yes, skin height features... but not the fact that we were a whole other creature. humans are too complexe and fine tuned.
YOU came from one cell, moron!
There is this creative intelligence thats acting. Some call it god snd what not.
//There is this creative intelligence thats acting//
Can you provide your best evidence for that claim please?
No, there isn't, or it wouldn't have made such glaring mistakes.
@@rstevewarmorycom mistake is a human perspective. If there is no such thing as perfect how can there be a mistake.
@@flashoftruth i just feel that way. My feelings doesnt care about facts.
@@aseemap8308 //mistake is a human perspective//
As opposed to...?
//If there is no such thing as perfect how can there be a mistake//
There is the definition of "perfect", that does not mean that such a thing is actually attainable, besides the pure subjectivity of it all.
Because there are a few things that we could consider "perfect", but they deal with mathematics and music.
//i just feel that way. My feelings doesnt care about facts.//
Well, I at least appreciate your honesty even though I would ask, why? And does that mean that you care more about your feelings than the facts? Because my feelings definitely care about the facts.
Ahg! It's not Random, There is no Random. Nothing is Random. Everything happens for a reason, natural selection. UGHHHH
It is random nothing is controlling it unless its God
And we cant choose what happens to our kids so its totally random mutations are said to create more complexity but often mutations are rare and harmful causing albinos animals or other defects such as rendering the animal unable to breed fruits dna mutate causing seedless fruit
Everything in a lifeless universe is random. Only when intelligent life forms are introduced can natural selection take place moron.
@@govitascom9610 your first premise is wrong. you don't know what natural selection is.
@GoVisasCom Anything could then form, as nothing is controlled which means huge potential problems as accidents always have problems 🤷🏻♂️
@@jirenthegray57 You are right! Intelligent life!
1:19 "And, although their hearts were convinced the signs were true, they still denied them wrongfully and arrogantly" holy quran 27:14
In how many days the earth was created 6 or 8 i think your quran is contradicting it self
@@asdf-th8jr nowhere is mentioned 8 days, by the way these days are not the days we know as 24 hours.
@@atteindresiempredad You have to make that up, even though the text clearly says days. Lol. Before science the theologians were all convinced it was literal days.
Both quran and bible are GARBAGE!!
Yah we were put here by a bone crushing alien God of salvation. It’s nuts. And God haters don’t deserve the future that’s coming.
May I smoke some of what you've been smoking?
alien God? Bone crushing? What comics are you reading?
@@RS54321 never heard of the Bible? Kingdom of heaven? Read book of Job? He crushes his enemies and binds their faces together in the dirt? You may not believe it-and that’s cool…but if you met me you wouldn’t say anything to me bc you’d be afraid
Be simple and be plain. A behavior I've notice in regards to the caucasians (me being a black man) is that you all like to make things difficult and complex. Not realizing or remembering that, from basic ground level principles do ALL complex theories opinions or facts come from. You cannot have a complex thought without the fundamentals. I can break down every complex statement or thing to it's basic principles. From the principles are you able to make things complex. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON-PHYSICAL. Even words are physical. Reason why God said every word is recorded. Sound is physical!!!
Evolution: A Worthless Dogma Held Up As Science. 😀
What makes it worthless? If you can disprove evolution to me I will say it’s fake just like you
Creationism: A ridiculous fringe theory being passed as truth 😀
You are genius sir. And I hate darvin that he crashed humans knowledge.
Knowledge passed by head to head.
Our old beings know something that we cant assumed. So they told to their generations
There is north at there is holy beings. They came and reproduced generations.
Created cast, gives knowledge. And told us go back to our real home that home never be vanished(like our sun dims 1000 crore years later, but upper stars dont)
What?
I had a stroke trying to read this
@@betsieswartz travel star to star, in north direction to reach, way for outer universe .., what you need for this travel .. You have to,achieve ., make a foundation for that think...
This is in message ...
@@devicesscience6278 you need to learn how to type