Відео

I confess, Evolution is anti-Christian, I don't believe in Creation myth of Genesis anymore. There's no evidence, its just a myth. All holy books have the same bullshit. I believe in Evolution.

I believe in determinism myself, for the most part, even if I feel that determinism is a lot like classical physics... which breaks down on the quantum level. Similarly, determinism makes complete sense in the physical world but breaks down in the realms of higher consciousness. I believe that humans have the ability to push back against determinism in many ways. Self improvement is one example. You can argue that a person's IQ is predetermined. But some people push themselves & make the most of what they have while others with greater IQ's flounder. The determinist, of course, will then argue that determinism imbued that individual with greater tenacity. That tenacity, they will argue, is just another product of determinism. But it's actually more complex than that. That person's tenacity will waver on occasion. They will be constantly micro managing their motivation by making strings of choices that are non computational. They are not determined. This same mechanism of choice applies to moral, strategic & artistic decisions.

Oh dear, some religious freak...

Oh dear, some religious freak...

Oh dear, some religious freak...

Oh dear, some religious freak...

Why are you so keen on disproving the theory of evolution? Which theory do you use to explain, that we can breed plants, to generate more yield for example? An important property of a theory is, that it can make predictions and the theory of evolution is one of the best to do it in my opinion P.S: per chance I have coded a programm, which can generate a 3d versions of the fractal you used in your video, you can check it out on my account if you are interested

Whether God is involved in formation of life or not has no effect on the question of whether we have free will. If our thoughts and actions are solely determined by the physics and chemistry of our brains I agree with Sabine that free will is, unfortunately, an illusion. Even if our thought processes partly take place in another realm that is somehow above and beyond our brains then what we decide to do is still deterministic.

If the laws of physics cannot manifest a paper airplane in and of themselves doesn't man manipulate these laws to create a paper airplane. Intelligence throws what the laws of physics alone can manipulate/ create out the window.

It took me far longer than I like to admit before I understood that "nuhuh" claims about what a god would do were just as religious as "uhuh" claims.

I saw a video by some German sounding dude like 15 years ago showing something like T Brucei having basically one of the same ATP synthase subunits as humans, you know just after being edited. Hilarious levels of signal and design, which of course, don't indicate anything significant! Stop looking! There is nothing to see here!

It's not shifting the burden of proof. Anything that isn't the result of natural laws isn't physics; it's either fallacy or pseudoscience. Something we don't understand can still be the resut of natural laws that we don't yet know or understand; even 'God' could be in that category. If there is a supreme higher power, is that power natural or not natural? How can it not be natural?

I was brought up in a Christian home myself and told constantly "If you don´t believe in GOD, you will end up in hell"... well, if that is not indoctrinating your kids, I don´t know what is. Religion represents the worst forms of judgement, manslaughter and making yourself enemies for no real reason... so if Evolution and Christianity are contradictions, I take Evolution a thousand times over Christianity.

Craig is what the Bible tell us “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” He prefers his status than God.

Oh my goodness! if you seriously believe that your God designed the world and life and all the rest of it, you must have a serious mental deficiency. The design is absolutely appalling, take the human eye detachable lens, take the knee, how many people do you know who have a bad knee joint. I can go on forever The universe is huge, colossal, as far as we can work out the only planet we have found life that can exist on is this one. So God in his infinite wisdom 😂😂😂😂😂 created a cosmos so that a few million creatures on a lonely rock in the middle of nowhere could worship him. It's just ludicrous!

The universe is billions of years old and vast beyond comprehension. We have all of eternity. I fail to see the connection between the sprit and the flesh, other than you are in corrupted flesh because you became corrupted. I also fail to see how the brain evolved to comprehend things like quantum physics. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies (1Co 15:40 ESV) All die inasmuch as all are sinners cast down to earth with the Father you spring from, the God of this world. Adam, the Christ, was clothed from the nakedness of wielding the fiery sword and being made to be sin. Adam rules from his throne and over his kingdom, preserving it for him. The Lord God will give him the throne of David his Father (Luk 1:32 NABO) Blessed is the kingdom of our Father David that is to come! (Mar 11:10 NABO) Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father (1Co 15:24 NABO) I am the root and offspring of David, the bright Morning Star. (Rev 22:16 NABO) The foundation is over here: YHWH, David, the Morning Star, going about in a tent of cloth, judged the gods - who neither know nor understand, wandering about in darkness - and became the snake, the Ancient Serpent of Old - thus fulfilling the law and beginning your lesson on good and evil. In the NT David is Peter. (Jesus) turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. (Mat 16:23 NABO) As the "obstacle" Peter is the Cornerstone, the stone which causes one to stumble. An apostle is the cornerstone of the city. The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev 21:14 NABO) --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam, the Christ - the word of the will, lamp of the light, and image of the substance of YHWH - wields the fiery sword, judges the earth as the Lawless One and becomes a worm - thus fulfilling the law. As the Lawless One, with all the power, signs, and wonders at the disposal of falsehood, and seeming to be a part of the workings of Satan, 2Thess 2:9-11, he leads them astray, as if with a bridle in the jaw of the people, on the day of the great slaughter, Is 30:25-28, having been given the power and rule, along with great authority of The Dragon as the First Beast/ Red Dragon, Rv 13:2, with seven heads and ten horns, Rv 12:3. Just as it is appointed that human beings die - be judged - appear a second time, (so also Christ) …will return Heb 9:27-28 …as the (Red) Dragon (Demon Sin) stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. (Rev 12:4 NABO) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will (Transfigure) with the spirit of the sword of his mouth and render speechless by his glorious radiance (2Th 2:8). When he rises against the prince of princes, he shall be broken without a hand being raised. (Dan 8:25 NABO) his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. (Mat 17:2 NABO) whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming(2Th 2:8 KJV) If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master (Gen 4:7 NABO) Who, robed in splendor, judges nations, crushes heads across the wide earth, Who drinks from the brook by the wayside and thus holds high the head. (Psa 110:6-7 NABO) --------------------------------------------------------------- (Are they) unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath? Of course not! For how else (are they) to judge… ? And why not say-- as we are accused and as some claim we say-- that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve. (Rom 3:5-8 NABO) Adam is a third-party mediator to this world and these heavens, from far beyond the heavens. The Ancient Serpent of Old is transfigured, revealed, and takes a seat upon a throne on the Mount of Assembly as the Ancient One of Days, in the realm of Adam, where it is forever peaceful. Adam had a forest of trees to learn from while he tilled the soil and prepared the promised land, a heavenly home, the garden of Eden, a new heaven and new earth, the kingdom prepared for you at the foundation of the world. The gods will be judged against the judgment (sacrifice) by Adam. YHWH is without measure.

👎👎👎

The Theory of Evolution is not "anti-biblical". It is explaining our biological history from the basis of evidence. If this science refutes the nonsense in the bible then the bible was never true in the first place.

If you are fast and loose with the description of religion (like theists do with the word theory when used scientifically) then yes you could make that argument. However, evolutionary theory has no priests, no reliance on the supernatural, no liturgies or holy books. I am proud to be a follower of the truth that is evolutionary religion, all hail the change in allele frequencies over time, praise be to DNA and genetic drift, lift your eyes to punctuated equilibrium and be inspired by the fossil record.

And Christianity is anti reality...

No DNA isn't special, it just is. Information is gained through duplication errors in DNA replication, DNA recombination, or DNA repair can lead either to simple changes in DNA sequence-such as the substitution of one base pair for another-or to large-scale genome rearrangements such as deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations of DNA from one chromosome to another. You must know this if you've studied evolution. Random genetic mutation that is then carried forward through non random evolutionary traits such as natural selection.

A non supernatural religious theory.

You make a whole lot of statements but offer scant little evidence to support any of your assertions.

Still sounds like you are proving her point and not realizing. Fascinating.

Evolution isn’t anything theological

reality is anti-christian apparently

The comments are filled with religious zealots who are too blind to realize their worship of evolution by natural selection is not scientific in the slightest. They just repeat mantras, such as “evolution is a fact! It has been proven! It has been directly observed!” It is crazy how blind these people are. A truly scientific mind would admit we have no idea how life operates under a naturalistic explanation. It is a fantasy narrative. Why can skin cells from frogs that have never evolved to operate as independent self sustainers and seekers of food suddenly turn into ‘xenobots’ that can navigate mazes, avoid threats, and intelligently seek out food?

Retarded video! Jeez! The amount of conflation and misunderstanding is astounding.

You began the video by saying that evolution is anti-teleological and thus incompatible with Christianity. You then ended with the idea that it is teleological...which would make it compatible with Christianity. Honestly, idk what the point of this video was.

I think you are conflating the terms "evolutionist" and "neo-Darwinist". The latter is refuted with epigenetics, not the former. Lamarck's ideas are well within the concept of evolution; an evolutionist not committed to neo-Darwinism can readily accept epigenetics.

Criticizing the use of succinct language is sophistry. Normative human communication uses a teleological paradigm; using a 2 letter preposition that implies teleology instead of spending an additional paragraph explaining the utility of some structure is not a nullification of the underlying philosophy. This is just how language works.

11:30 is missing the point. The example provided is evidence against teleology, not evidence for it. The argument is that if you presuppose telos for the eye, the structure of the eye demonstrates a lack of proper design planning. The structure of the eye demonstrates an evolutionary history of utility rather than teleology. Stating that this somehow "requires" teleology to make a point against teleology is extremely sloppy.

We are participants in evolution, not just the result of it. So although evolution doesn't jave a goal, it ends up being us. 30 generations means a billion ancestors or descendants so it is an extremely dynamic process that literally counts every hair on our body. What matters to us mortals is our part in the immortal process. We are the end, the middle and the beginning - a trinity of one godlike process. How we live will contribute to whether all future generations live in a hell on Earth or a paradise that continues for millions of years.

This was just weird and seemed deliberately intended to confuse.

Sophistry! Most of us were indoctrinated with one religion or another as children. A few of us were fortunate enough to have subsequent experiences that gave us the tools to undo that indoctrination. EUDEMONIA (or Human Flourishing) Why there is something, rather than nothing, is a mystery that confounds ontology, particle physics, and cosmology. Whence came energy, matter, and the laws of nature? Were they deftly ordained by a Divine Creator? No, a god can’t be the answer, it begets a two-part question, what begot that god, is there an infinite regression? Theology’s sophistries use special pleading in etiology, futile, failed theodicies, and tortuous teleology. Did an ethical god create cruel, callous carnivores, with venomous fangs, canine teeth, talons, and claws? Did it create parasites, bacteria, and viruses like herpes, but keep hidden from us that germs can cause disease? Did it make men strong, but some, brutal in seduction, yet give women all the burdens of human reproduction? No! A moral agent, to be ethical, accepts their duty of care, so, not one of mankind’s gods can be ethically aware. Stone Age people, for want of any science education, invoked gods and spirits in their explication of forces of nature, both wondrous and frightening, like fire and flood and thunder and lightning. Their superstitious beliefs they thought made sense of a world incomprehensible, mired in their ignorance. From shamans in trances to praying priests on a mission, mankind’s ‘Original Sin’ was ‘The Fall’ for superstition. From the brutal Bronze Age up to these modern days, it’s been pogroms, religious wars, Inquisitions, and Crusades. Yet the gods in their abode remained silent and invisible, though they still begot theology that’s rabidly risible. If just one were real, to spare us havoc, it would reveal its plan, but the gods, all, were made in the image of man. So, what confounds the concept of objective morality? Why, all the gods who condoned their own immorality. Jehovah, Christianity's Almighty Lord God, lords it over Heaven, though he's a sordid old sod. He's malicious, capricious, jealous, and genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, and megalomaniacal. He tasks his sidekick, Satan, with cruel sadism in Hell, torturing 'sinners' for all eternity, and atheists as well! So, as the problems with theodicies remain unresolved, Jehovah, from his turpitude, cannot be absolved. See the Sikh, Muslim, Jain, and Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Mormon, and Scientologist, Spiritualist, Wiccan, Christian, and Jew, Confucianist, Shintoist, Taoist, and Hindu. Yea verily, the faithful at prayer all look dopey; prayer doesn’t work, it's superstitious baloney. If praying to your god really worked, just imagine, our world a better place, sans plague, sans war, sans famine. So, why should yours be the 'One True Faith' in a magical, phantasmagorical, astral wraith? The varieties of religious experience reveal feelings of a god's immanence might seem quite real, but feelings of the numinous are clearly psychological, so belief in any god is really quite illogical. Monistic materialism makes for rational understanding; objective evidence of a spirit realm's obviously lacking. It should be evident we have just this one life, with all its pleasures, challenges, toil, and strife. As social beings we evolved our moral sensibility, combating selfishness, lust, and venality. Human evolution's due to Natural Selection, so life derives no purpose, at any god’s direction. Purpose implies design, for it to make rational sense, but for a rational designer, there’s no objective evidence. To give one’s life meaning, choose a purpose or mission; it’s a betrayal of reason to put one’s faith in a religion. The faithful think their god bestows blessings or strife, so they’re judgmental, but it’s chance that rules one’s life. Religion’s harm exceeds its good, the rationalist laments; false beliefs foment fear, injustice, and malevolence. When faith deposes reason, tyranny stalks the land, where flames of fear and bigotry are fervently fanned. Religion should have no say in the politics of a nation; its revelations and dogmata lack a rational foundation. Aristotle’s eudemonia, or human flourishing, conflicts with the social engineering that religion inflicts on societies that could democratically endorse rationality-based ethics, mores and laws. The most religious nations often are the most barbarian, whereas the least religious are the most egalitarian. Religion validates discrimination and oppression; religious faith stifles policy on research and education. Moderate religion's like fertile soil, full of pious ordure, wherein extremism takes root, to terrorize and torture. Holy texts, from ancient times, in ignorance divine, were blind; LGBTQ and straight folk are all equally fine. See, a new era beckons, where humanity could be, as reason infers, one great family. You can blame wishful thinking, religious indoctrination, and maybe, psychotic delusion or hallucination. But there’s no need for you to blame your genes, your faith’s also fomented by religious memes. They corrupted your mind with a contagious infection of superstitious ideas that can’t stand close inspection. So, cast them out, get rid of that insanity, then you can revel in your unfettered Humanity!

All this time I thought things evolved, but now I see the light. Nothing evolves, nothing changes, nothing CAN change. Damn you Heraclitus!

Mr Hunter are you capable of producing a thesis easily communicable to smooth-brained illiterates like myself? I’m not a biologist and I’m not a theologian. Why does it matter that religion drives science?

Why is separate species creation important for Christians?

Was God being a good utilitarian when he drowned millions of men, women, children and animals but saved Noah and his family?

"A theory because there is no plausible cause" No, it's a theory because any scientific understanding of a natural phenomenon that has gathered enough supporting data to be considered verifiably true is elevated to a theory. That's just how a theory works. Germs make you sick, that's a part of germ theory. Are germs a religion? No, that's silly.

Since you are so clear that evolution is not theologically neutral, and in opposition to Christianity, you need to abandon that religion. Instead you claim that biological science is religion. It is not.

I guess I do not understand evolution after statements in this video. Hence, I cannot form an opinion whether it contradicts with Christianity or not.

Creationist excusegists get hung up on Darwin. It's stupid. Evolution is real, and there has been just a little scientific progress since Darwin. There is no such thing as Darwinism.

There are certain religious beliefs that become very difficult to hold if you accept the well-established science. That's a problem for Christianity, but not for science.

"Darwin was stating his own religious beliefs." Darwin was a trained seminary student. If that's true, then evolution by means of natural selection is a Christian religion. But this is obviously false. Darwin was a naturalist. He saw things and recorded his observations. If you can't observe Christianity in nature, then Darwin's religious beliefs did not come into his observations. This is like saying that a Christian who experiments on synthetic rubber is stating Christian chemistry when he records his results.

Darwin was not doing religion, he was not doing theology. He was doing science. Your attempt to claim it is "religion" is pretty revealing, in that you're merely trying to bring the science down to your level. Of course it doesn't agree with christianity - which matters not even a little bit. The only thing that matters is whether it's true. Your arguments against it simply reveal that you don't know what the word "theory" means, you don't know what "utilitarianism" is, you're vague (at best) on what theology is, you deliberately misinterpret Darwin (and everyone else) and you know pretty much nothing about evolution.

Theists should really stay in their fucking lane and stick with faith.

This is really interesting and I'd like to sort of address the things you've said in this video for a bit. I'd first like to say that I agree that evolution is not consistent with Christianity if you take the bible to be literally true, but whether or not an explanation for something was proposed, accepted, or rejected by scholarly Christians does not bear on whether or not it is consistent or inconsistent with Christianity. Christianity is a melting pot of sects and many of those interpret the bible in such a way to allow that evolution could have taken place. You might see this as absurd or ridiculous, but I very much doubt you take the entirety of the bible at face value, so all Christians will derive their own meanings and you cannot say yours is more correct than theirs given that all these beliefs surround a persons faith. Suffice to say, even if Darwin didn't believe in god or did believe in some other religion, or even if his work was inconsistent with Linneaus' works, that has no bearing whatsoever on whether it's true and whether its consistent with Christianity. You make the claim that Darwin is proposing his own religion. This seems like an attempt to "level the playing field" because after all, if evolution was a religion, who's to say it's any more true than any other religion. Also if evolution is a religion, that means it's not on an empirical basis that the idea was founded, but by faith, again leveling the playing field. Of course Evolution was not a religion when it was laid out by Darwin and even if it were, that wouldn't mean that the modern synthesis of Evolution is a religion. Evolution does not rest on the beliefs of Darwin, it rests on the supporting evidence for Evolution. Darwin could have been totally wrong about virtually anything and Evolution would still be correct. Darwin never proposed a new god, you are simply projecting here. Saying that he describes something you think should be called a god is falacious. He never explicitly stated anything about Evolution having anything to do with any conscious force or being, so if you are going to say a god can be proposed without being an agent or conscious, the word "god" has lost all meaning since it is departing entirely from any usage of the word by any theist. That being said, Darwins works were not inconsistent with Linneaus. Linneaus himself is the one who pointed out that there is no diagnostic characteristic that should exclude man from ape as any diagnostic characteristic proposed either does not apply to all humans or does apply to some other apes. It's for this reason that the homo genus falls under tge hominid family and the primate order, a taxonomic ordering that was then recapitulated ad nausium by numerous genetic comparisons centuries after the fact. From the fusing of chromosome 2 and 3, ERV's and their shared locations in respective genomes between all apes and humans to the broken GULO gene shared in all great apes that uniquely prevents us from synthesizing Vitamin C to say nothing of the genome to genome comparisons with nearly pure identity in coding DNA. 1:45 "If you do not understand this, then you do not understand evolution." Absolutely false. You could know absolutely nothing about Darwin or even the history of the various proposed biological models that had eventually been refined into the modern synthesis of Evolution and still understand the mechanisms of evolution and all the bodies of facts supporting it those mechanisms as well as the results of evolution. Evolution, again, does not stand or fall based on what Darwin believed or said. He was wrong about many things and science is the all about being more right tomorrow understanding you are wrong about something now. It's a pragmatic philosophy that concerns epistomology. "The theory part is provisional" No the word Theory just means a model that describes a phenomena, is the best explanation for that phenomena, is supported by a body of facts and is contradicted by none of those facts. 4:00 "Epigenetics contradicts evolution" No it does not. It is one of the driving factors of evolution. The fact that hormones can modify which genes are coded for in a cell is a major mechanism of homeostasis. Histones provide utility independent of their use in epigenetics as a structure for allowing chromosomes or proto-chromomes to form, condensing a lot of genetic material into a smaller volume. A quick example of how a cell would evolve an epigenetic trait is this: Say a small bacterium is growing in water and the water temperature begins to drop and raise. Say some of these bacteria have a mutation that lets them produce a protein that prevents freezing during the low temperature zones. The cells that produce this protein will reproduce more as they can survive better. Say these cells now make up the majority of the population. The cell produces the protein whether or not it's freezing and that wastes metabolism when its warm. A mutation allows a new protein we'll call a "hormone" to bind to the histone side chains when it's warm and prevent that section from unraveling to get read. These proteins then unlatch when its cold, allowing the cell to produce the antifreeze protein giving the new cell a major survival advantage. What's incredible is that most of these processes are not independently evolved. You have a system like epigenetics evolve once and those sections of the genome eventually will get duplicated by mutations and modified by mutations. And then those groupings of sections can have their behavior change, or be duplicated, translocated, suppressed or expressed. Epigenetics is, again, a driving force of evolution, to say it precludes evolution is to not understand one or either of the concepts. The fossil record is actually pretty unimportant to whether or not organisms have evolved, but I'm no archeologist, so I leave whether archeology is or is not indicative of evolution to the experts. As it turns out, the experts just disagree with you. This isn't to say you're wrong, but even if you are right it really doesn't impact whether or creatures have evolved. The proof is in the DNA. I don't believe in god and I have no issue with people that do so long as they keep it to themselves and out of the classroom, but what I do have an issue with is smug people with niche positions telling others that they are lying about their own religious beliefs because they contradict their own. I think it's really repugnant for you to do that.

It is apparent you have a weird definition of words that don't track to how they are used colloquially. That's okay but don't expect people to agree with you. My gripe is that the content of this video is addressing old and outdated beliefs. It's like complaining that English is wrong and then using old Germanic as a reference.

But, the theory has moved on. In fact, so much work has been done since Darwin that it's ridiculous how theists keep attacking Darwin's model, instead of attacking current models. Or ya'know, not attacking them at all and presenting some evidence for creation. Your attempt to paint the theory of evolution as a religion is both wrong and dishonest. Knocking something down to your height doesn't make you taller.