no it's not. they rejected God when He walked on earth; "surely they'll respect my son." but no, they killed Him. we should always expect rejection of the facts.
@@MrLogo73 huh? the burden of proof is one the on who brings the claim. considering you just addressed me, youre actually the one in need of evidence here. atheists have this strange theory that they have no burden of proof, i look left and right and see them often as the one's shoving claims in people's faces, but then turning and saying they have no burden to offer evidence for anything they believe. talk about silly and intellectually dishonest. you wanna complain, but offer nothing for it. talk about having your cake and eatting it to.
Theres zero historical credibility to the creation myth in genesis. And you were once a single cell as was every one of us. I suggest you learn more on embryology.
@Homo_sAPEien there is zero credibility that life originated from non life. There is also zero credibility to the idea that somehow the chemicals acting apon the chemicals inside of the matter of your brain can produce proper logical inference and the emergence of "true" speech. That is the real myth.
@@Homo_sAPEienoh? And there is for a big bang? And evolution? Please enlighten me with the evidence? Whether you or anyone else that doesn't believe in GOD and creation, I'll say this. Your belief is a religion also. The supreme court said your belief system is a religion, but we don't need them to know it. Religion is a belief in something, faith in something. Oh, and the name of the case is, Torcaso V Watkins. Still want to read your evidence for these things
@@robertramsey653 How was Torcaso v. Watkins about evolution or the Big Bang? That court case never mentioned either of those things, if I’m not mistaken. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District actually determined that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution in science class. As for the evidence for the Big Bang, idk much about it and never said anything about it so don’t ask me. In the case of evolution, the best evidence for it is that it’s observed to occur. Yes adaptation is evolution by definition, and it’s also not the only type of evolution observed. Genetic drift is also observed to occur, and speciation has been observed to occur. But presumably what you are wanting evidence for is universal common ancestry. There are multiple lines of evidence including fossil evidence, DNA evidence, embryological evidence, et cetera. I obviously can’t in a single UA-cam comment prove all the relationships between every single species given that there are millions of them, but I’ll start with a good example. First mammals (such as bats, elephants, humans, et cetera) are distinguished by several characteristics. A few of these being that unlike other tetrapods, mammals have 3 inner ear bones and we don’t have the quadrate or articulate bone. The two bones unique to the mammalian inner ear are the malleus and incus bones. We now have fossil evidence and developmental evidence that the malleus and incus bones of the mammalian inner ear are DERIVED FROM the quadrate and articulate bones found in other jawed vertebrates. To learn about this evidence, I will direct you to read a paper from the National Library of Medicine titled “Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures.” They document in that paper far more than I could ever put in a UA-cam comment. 🤣 When you’re done reading it, feel free to ask me any questions about anything you didn’t think was explained well enough. And then tell me which group or structure you would like me to provide evidence for the evolutionary origin of next. 👍🏻
@@robertramsey653 As for the evidence for the Big Bang, idk much about it and never said anything about it so don’t ask me. In the case of evolution, the best evidence for it is that it’s observed to occur. Yes adaptation is evolution by definition, and it’s also not the only type of evolution observed. Genetic drift is also observed to occur, and speciation has been observed to occur. But presumably what you are wanting evidence for is universal common ancestry. There are multiple lines of evidence including fossil evidence, DNA evidence, embryological evidence, et cetera. I obviously can’t in a single UA-cam comment prove all the relationships between every single species given that there are millions of them, but I’ll start with a good example. First mammals (such as bats, elephants, humans, et cetera) are distinguished by several characteristics. A few of these being that unlike other tetrapods, mammals have 3 inner ear bones and we don’t have the quadrate or articulate bone. The two bones unique to the mammalian inner ear are the malleus and incus bones. We now have fossil evidence and developmental evidence that the malleus and incus bones of the mammalian inner ear are DERIVED FROM the quadrate and articulate bones found in other jawed vertebrates. To learn about this evidence, I will direct you to read a paper from the National Library of Medicine titled “Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures.” They document in that paper far more than I could ever put in a UA-cam comment. 🤣 When you’re done reading it, feel free to ask me any questions about anything you didn’t think was explained well enough. And then tell me which group or structure you would like me to provide evidence for the evolutionary origin of next. 👍🏻
One thing that people do forget is the probability calculus even on gambling games. I used to play card games both with my friends and even on casino, but what some of my friends didn't quite understand was the fact that you have calculate everything like in the game called 'Texas hold 'em'. One game can be won by just chance, but in a long run, what you are doing is the most important thing. This led always to a pitiful scenario, where usually two or three people lost all of their money and everytime during those 'sessions'. Math is something that you cannot twist nor bribe. It is always the same for everyone in every single time. But in this evolution theory you don't even have an intelligent mind to make any choices at all. The complexity of a single living cell is way too complex with the DNA genetic data, that having a cell with DNA just by an accident won't ever happen and what this bright minded scientist said, time won't help at all for the reasons he explained, Probabilities don't cumulate by giving more tiime and chances. It just doesn't work that way, They are the same every single time.
Molecular geneticists like Dennis Nobel have tried to quantify this and it ends up a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Genes are not blueprints and are definitely not selfish so the whole idea of going through all the switches one by one completely breaks down. Theories like natural selection work well for micro evolution (birds evolving beaks, fish developing different coloured fins, etc...) but completely breaks down for macro-evolution (one species becoming another). Taking an analog from the physics world it's like trying to apply Newtonian mechanics to electrons and atoms, it just doesn't work. However with physics, the proof of new experiments is in the future so we have the luxury of studying experiments then forming the theory, whereas for things like origin of species, the proof is in the past so the equivalent of quantum theory for species creation may already have been lost in the dust. Either way, one thing is clear, the micro theory of evolution has too many holes to hold water.
I always tell people it takes lots more faith to believe your long long long ancestor was a fish in the sea and one of your recent ancestors was an ape swinging from the trees, than to believe in a creator God
@@jockyoung4491 I would be surprised if you actually knew anything about evolution. If you really did you wouldn't make that comment . Once you really learn about evolution its a dead idea with no real evidence. So you can keep acting like you know something, or you can go educate yourself on the topic. I'm not trying to be rude, I used to think evolution was probably true. Once I looked at it I soon realized there are far more issues then evidence. It also takes far more faith to believe evolution happened then God did.
@@ConservativeMirror Yes, because we had the same designer. Fords and Chevys are similar too, but no one suggests that one evolved into the other. Instead, we know that they were both intelligently designed by the human mind, and any similarities they share come from this common cause. What abiogenesis says that people evolved from rocks - as the so call primordial soup is essentially just eroded rocks. That indeed takes more blind faith than I am capable of.
@@jockyoung4491 Evolution cannot be proven by empirical science because no one was there to observe it. The gentleman is correct when he said origin is in the realm of history, NOT science. One does not need to be a scholar of anything in order to understand this.
The naturalist, materialist mantra: Given enough time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain.. The probabilities of one small protein forming by a mindless process of trial and error is calculated as 1 chance in 10 followed by 70 zero's. And there are 42 million proteins in the simplest cell. The longest known protein is the molecular spring Titin, @ 25,000 to 35,000 amino acids. Only the 20 specific, out of 500+ kinds. In only their left hand forms except for glycine and specifically sequenced, not unlike 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words.
@@jockyoung4491 Consensus hardly determines truth. That man cannot make carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus form a single protein or gene. And still believing a mindless process of trial and error is responsible for the forming and organizing the 473 genes coding for the specific sequencing and assembly of the 16.8 billion of only 20 specific amino acids out of 500+ kinds in the 42 million proteins in the simplest known cell. In a warm little pond exposed to 98 elements, diluted by 1.5 sextillion molecules per drop of water. And scientists cannot make 1 gene or protein starting from the 6 elements?
@@jockyoung4491 The facts and figures I present are all verified by naturalist scientists. Srch: New Technology Enables Fast Protein Synthesis An article about MIT's biomimicry of a ribosome. The molecular machine made of 40 proteins and 4 rRNA's. That assembles amino acids into proteins. This sound like the qualities warm little ponds have?
@@noles9998 if they were willing to reject the prophets and kill Christ then of course they're willing to believe we came from monkeys made by natural forces..."surely they'll respect my son."
Exactly, it would be a lot more likely any dead critter or human is far more likely to "reanimate" than building up from raw chemicals. It's still not going to happen, though.
So you're putting up a straw man and assume all atheists except the same things. I'm an atheist and I just don't believe in things to believe in any things I follow factual evidence that can withstand peer review and is repeatable. What repeatable evidence do you have of Christianity that could withstand peer review
@@airpower7692 I'm not sure what believing in things, just because other people (with the same biases) agree with something has to do with the problem of undirected biogenesis.
EVERY! and I mean EVERY! argument by Theists has been destroyed and debunked by Atheists uncountable times. There NEVER! EVER! has been any EVIDENCE! for a ‘God’ NONE! ZERO! ZILCH! in the history of the world. Give me the EVIDENCE! of a ‘God’ I’LL WAIT!!!!! 😂🤣😂
I certainly not attacking this man's faith, what I totally disagree with is the disingenuous creationist trops he is comming out with, all this has been debunked over and over again by scientist and laymen alike,Alice this man is just preaching to the converted because he certainly is NOT convering me.
what arguments , they fall alone , you need to keep add layers to fit the bible narrative . all animals got in the ark , hey they don't fit , all kinds still not , they get only the babies , but we got so many species , they super evolve from the kinds in the ark , we refute evolution but accept the same in overdrive . We laugh at science for saying non dog get to a dog but after the flood the dog kind originate dogs, wolf, foxes , chacals and so on, but how you explain marsupial on australia ho people carry them
That depends. I've never had a believer answer an honest question. I ask difficult questions, but they're fair. 100% of the time, they run. I'm not asking anyone to lie, so if you don't know the answer, just day you don't know. Here's an example. Lets see if you'll answer it. From what I understand, God and the Christian religion is for everyone, so it doesn't matter what your race is, or where you come from. God doesn't play favorites. If you want to be saved, you have to accept Jesus as your savior. This is how I understand it, so if I don't have all the details exactly as they should be, keep in mind that I'm not religious person. I believe I understand the general concept, so that should be sufficient for what I'm about to ask. If all this is so important, why did the events that took place in the bible occur in only one area of the world? There were civilizations in North and South America, China, India, Australia, etc... They all have their own religions, and never heard of Christ until explorers showed up. I simply can't believe that God chose not to reveal himself to most of the people on the planet. It just doesn't make sense. Are all these other races inferior? I think that's a pretty fair question.
@@elilane8627 We are all brothers and sisters. through Adam and then through Noah I was indoctrinated in Malaysia in Races till I had a light bulb moment by Answer in Genesis.
I couldn't deny the possibility of a religion getting rid of racism, though it seems highly unlikely. However, I'm highly confident that monotheism would promote tribalism, which is just as bad as racism.
The Majesty, the awesomeness of our Lord God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. "As worthy as a grain of sand, Yet, held precious in Your hand. You raised me up above the clabber, Off all creation, I call you Father "
For "Lord God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." substitute "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or in fact anything you want, and your comment is exactly the same. completely meaningless. None of the above have evidence for existence. However we know that dogs exist, and curiously enough, if you are a dog lover, your comment is actually true if you substitute the word "Dog"
@@jockyoung4491 Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success for the same resources as sexual reproduction. How could sexual reproduction ever gain advantage to be selected and how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complimentary apparatuses needed at the same time when non-intelligent processors cannot plan for the future coordination of male and female organs?
Not just develop...but develop contemporaneously with compatible chromosomes to procreate with a compatible sperm capable of swimming in a harsh environment capable of killing it with the directed objective of reaching the compatible egg to fertilize it while the women was not menstruating. What are the odds?
Natural origin of life says that inanimate objects (molecules) without brains or even nervous systems, somehow "decided" to join together and become more complex. Even IF they could it doesn't explain how it came to life.
@@nathancook2852the prproblem with your explanation is its just as flawed. Then you offer no counter arguments just like most who don't know anything. The worst comment I ever hear is you just don't understand evolution. You obviously haven't studied it. As everyone knows it's true. Then I start talking to you guys and I pin you down and you stop replying.
With all of the evidence coming out for creationism (especially young earth), it's an exciting time to be a Bible believing Christian. Appreciate you guys!
"With all of the evidence coming out for creationism (especially young earth), it's an exciting time". What evidence is that? I haven't seen ANY, and whenever I've asked creationists for the evidence, they always evade the question.
@@forrest7050 so you're the final decision maker on whether or not evidence is true or not? Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean it isn't valid.
@@BiologosDebunked-h2vyou literally did what he said in the comment, you evaded the question instead of providing the evidence, he never said he was the final judge, you straw manned him, he asked for the evidence YOU mentioned.
"We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is nonsense. Yet we cling to it." Henry Gee, staunch evolutionist
It is a depiction of evolution, and makes a great image for the non scientific lay person.. But it is NOT a depiction of how evolution works, it was not even trying to be. Evolution evolved all the creatures depicted in the image individually, not sequentially, but they are still all related. " Yet we cling to it." Lay people cling to it. Evolution scientists, even at college level, never did.
Here's another interesting admission, this one from Professor Richard Lewontin (1929-2021), who was a world leading evolutionary biologist. "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." You can read the full quote here: creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote
@@user-sy4ov7tb3q Science is now looking more and more at the relationship between the quantum world and the material world, not just in relation to gene expression in evolution, but also in the OOL. The paths that science is taking are getting more and more exciting.
@@jockyoung4491 an evolutionary scientist admitted how he saw scientists work, from all his experiences. How convenient, to dismiss it as nothing but "one man's opinion", but then take another statement by an evolutionary scientist as "science".
@@user-sy4ov7tb3q It would be better to look for the alleged original comment and review it in *FULL* context. Reading a quote-mine knocked up by a fraudulent source is folly.
If I didn't know the origins of computers, then I could say, "Computers are so complex, they MUST have come from aliens. You need a computer to produce a computer. Therefore, that technology HAD to be extraterrestrial in origin"
The "begining of life" (abiogenesis) and "evolution" are two distinct scientific problems that sometimes overlap. Apologists mixing the two and showing this level of scientific illiteracy only makes the faith looks bad, let it go folks, focus on more essential apologetics and let the scientists do science.
Abiogenesis and evolution are inseparably linked. Those who purport to tell us how life evolved (without evidence for macro-evolution) tell us to ignore how inanimate matter became living matter. Life comes only from life. It is truly hilariously on its face. Don't ask questions we can't answer but we know how it works today. Going even further back, Evolutionists should be made to explain how the matter in that "purported pond scum" came into being in the first place.
@@alantasman8273 Let's take a step back. You do accept, though, that through mechanisms such as DNA and RNA, individuals pass on their their traits to their offspring, and that that process is imperfect (information is transfered imperfectly, changes being what we usually call "mutations")?
@@duckdialectics8810 I accept the DNA is an information system in collaboration with other information systems within the cell working in tandem to regulate, maintain and construct biological organisms That information system has the ability to transcribe information and communicate instructions to living cell components which carry out their instructions while correcting errors in the process. That very communication regulates the amount of variation available to an organism being built and prevents that organism form transforming into another type of organism. DNA through mutation does not gain new information but overtime becomes impaired by the loss of information. This loss of information is passed down to successive generations...actually devolving an organism over time.
when talking to people it is useless to talk about eye evolution or ape to man evolution. you need to ask them to THINK about how could 5000 different cellular items and organs that are needed to breath could EVOLVE and at the same time those organs and cellular items are all REQUIRED to breath.
@@jockyoung4491 Did they just decide to create lungs for themselves somehow having the foreknowledge that they would need them ...or did the oxygen say to the living organism...here I am get yourselves in shape for the new world order. Your comment attributing thought to nature is idiotic.
@@danielhammond3218 no it’s not. He invokes the argument from ignorance at least twice and he provides zero evidence for how you reach the conclusion that the Christian god is real
Since the first man and woman, we have doubted God. It's in our nature. Biological evolution is not scientifically provable. DNA has order as it was designed like a programmer designs a computer program. DNA has an author and did not come from chaos.
This was a fantastic video! Thanks for interviewing this scientist. One of the most poignant things about this video, is that when he was saying he was confronted with logical questions from a believer (one of his peers), that he felt uncomfortable. I've noticed this too when I state the very same subject matter to people who believe in evolution. Rather than try to answer the questions (because they know they cannot provide rational answers), they resort to insults. Hearing such an accomplished scientist present these things, in such a way that any layperson can understand, was very encouraging and edifying! Peace and blessings. Tom. M.
@@jockyoung4491 Scientists use shame and character assassination against other scientists all the time to keep real scientific inquiry from being done. If character assassination is not an insult what is? Your comment is ludicrous.
@@jockyoung4491 Tell that to Drs James Tour, Mark Armitage, Mark Snelling, Kurt Wise and Mary Schweitzer, and other scientists that have been slandered and in some cases lost their jobs because their research went against the paradigm of their peers. Watch the movie "Expelled" for more examples. Get up to speed.
@@jockyoung4491 How so? Did you NOT watch the video and hear the scientific IMPOSSIBILITY of life even GETTING STARTED much less becoming complex? Variation within the maximum threshold of an organism's genomic information (micro adaptive changes), is ALL that we see in nature, is all that has ever been seen, and all that will ever be seen. "Evolution" on a "macro" level, has never been seen, is NOT reproducible (see the fruit fly and bacteria experiments - even Darwin's beak variations), and will NEVER be seen. Why? Gee, I wonder if there could be a CREATOR behind it all (sarcasm intended).
@@alantasman8273 I have no idea why you would consider my comment as "ludicrous." I pointed out that, from a lay person's perspective, people resort to insults rather than actually engage in ration debate. I agree with you that the "character assassination" of scientists who stray from the mantra is equivalent to "insults," if that is what you were TRYING to say.
@@jockyoung4491 Possibly so, but the "debate" in the literature is centered around a myth (Macro Evolution), which has been inculcated into the mushy brains of children from a very young age. It's no wonder that so many cannot see the impossibility that, say, the universe could self-create and that life could self-assemble from non-living chemicals. Even a cursory view at the data, from a standpoint of pure logic, confirms that NEITHER of those two scenarios are possible. With those scenarios then becoming thoroughly moot, only one possibility remains, i.e., Intelligent Design/Special Creation.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1 : 20
@@jockyoung4491 So much flaw in this statement I don't know where to start..But let me remind you that (because you seem to love science) an eternal universe is not the scientific consensus at all. It is considered that the universe does have a beginning...
Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. To admit that they will one day be held accountable by someone or something far more powerful than themselves.
@@rickdelatour5355 I can't do that at the moment I'm at work Right now and can't and provide that evidence at the moment... But I bet you could Google "Evidence supporting the Bible" and get hundreds of thousands of hits... I would suggest you use other search engines to get even more because Google can sometimes be quite biased. That is of course if you're interested in the truth and not just supporting your own narrative.
Very well communicated as a well designed and carried out interview. Especially I like the sensible presentation of the topic and how the conclusion is so very well supported.
You don't have to be a theist to reject evolution you do however how to be religious to accept it. Sometimes it can be difficult to put these concepts into words but the idea that time is the enemy of complexity is very succinctly put.
@@jockyoung4491 Genetic mutations are invariable deleterious or neutral. Positive mutations are vanishingly small. If the rate of information destruction outstrips information creation ad by a huge amount how can you increase genetic complexity, especially over an extended period of time.
@harryf1ashman - ACGTACGTACGTetc 1000x is *not* information, agree? Mutate one single C into a G (probability 1/64) and you get information: TAC = Tyrosine, GTA = Valine, CGT = Arginine, ACG = Threonine, TAC = Tyrosine etc
Excellent interview, I'd love to see Dr Grocott and Dr James Tour in conversation, they would be able to show the science world exactly why evolution is still only a very basic theory.
@@jockyoung4491 Macro Evolution has never been observed in nature and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils. Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record: • “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977) • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980) • “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189) • “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
Not only did God create the world, He holds all the molecules together, keeps the electrons from flying out of orbit, with His own hands. Some day He will let go and BABY! Watch out. One giant Universal fireball.
@@tomwiedemeier4406 when you think about it, everything that exists in the universe has to be held together otherwise it would fly apart. Going to be a bit messy when God calls time out, as He did when he commandeered the fountains of the deep to let off a head of steam, but next time it’s fire. The Climate change industry will have their work cut out
The problem is with this chemist's thinking. He says that he reached his conclusion by elimination, which assumes that he has considered all possibilities. No one scientist can conceive ALL possibilities. That is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.
@@tosuchino6465 please suggest what may be the alternative. Just like math , when there is no other way we can safe to say that is the only conclusion. If you can show otherwise then please show it.
@@alexzendermarunsai One possible is that there were forces at the quantum level at work. There are other mysteries that cannot be explained in the realm of traditional chemistry. That's why new concepts like quantum chemistry and quantum biology were born. He is an industrial chemist, who probably has no knowledge of quantum chemistry, especially at the times when the earth's rotation rate and angle were quite different from today. Of course, my idea is pure speculation. I'm a computer scientist, not a chemist. In any case, my original point stands. No one scientist can conceive all possibilities, and there will be more discoveries in this field that no scientist has slightest ideas of yet. You surely don't mean to suggest he is scientifically omniscient, do you?
We need to distinguish between 1) Creation of the universe 2) Origin of life 3) Evolution Number 1, I don’t know. Number 2, I don’t know. But number 3 is proven, beyond any doubt. I wish people who argue against this just checked it out. But a nice vise guy with a meaningful conversation and very valid arguments. About fossils, and left handed proteins. He suggests the fossils are young because of the left/right ratio, but didn’t he say hours and weeks young? (The left right ration is very quick) Why is it almost only species that don’t exist anymore? Response to his ending. I used to believe in God, it was amazing, really an unbelievable good part of my life. If you can believe, do it!
@@nathancook2852 I know some people keep telling they were Christian, they were raised in Christian family. It doesn't give any proof to back up arguments. Some people choose believe not because they are too lazy to find out your matter, but because they don't need to do it. You put your matter on the table, you figure it out yourselves. And you should not call others narrow minded, just because they have no interest on your matter. When people learn and find out the answer, they stop searching and they embrace the truth. What the world offers are questions and they will make you live in despair and restless. What do you do when you find the answer of a question ? You rest. Not because being a narrow minded, but because you have the answer and you take a rest. That's what Jesus said : You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. See? The offer is freedom from all of those confusion and restless way of life. Jesus said : “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. God knows what we need, freedom from all of our worry and burden. God knows our need. People keep burdening their life with all questions that they can never answer, God say stop worrying, come to me and take a rest. The danger of keep searching is when lost control and you have no idea how to stop it. Why don't we learn from human too? We create, and our invention has its creator. So does this universe. I make it simple that way for myself. I hope you find rest.
@@jockyoung4491 As the Scriptures have a fantastic record explaining the natural world around us, the heart of man, and the history of God's relationship with man, it stands up against macro-evolution thinking which has never been observed in nature or the fossil record.
if it is more logical to have a designer then there should also be a logical purpose of the designer otherwise this theory will become less credible. so what would be the most logical sensible purpose of the designer? boredom? a competition among designers?
Those who argue for the big bang theory just refuse to acknowledge the presence of a creator from the beginning. Creation by any name is creation, GOD in whatever language
@@Jupiter1423 Nope..the Big bang does not align with Genesis and how God created the Heavens and the Universe and all therein. It also specifies deep time when God made the heavens, the Universe and all therein in six literal days.
One question absolutely destroys the idea that there is scientific evidence for believing that evolution isn't real and believing in the young Earth: Where are the atheist scientists that have these beliefs? If there were legitimate scientific reasons to have these beliefs, that have nothing to do with religion, there should be MANY scientist that are atheists that have these views.
You guys can't even get one simple definition right, evolution isn't about creating life, its about how life become diverse over time. Why can't you guys ever get that right. its not that freaking hard for regular people. My guess is, you guys straw man it so that regular people don't understand it. This is why I can't take creationists seriously, you guys continue to straw man our current theories because it challenges your beliefs.
0:35 Straight off the bat. It takes more faith to believe in the natural order than a designer. Well that is just a subjective opinion. Let’s hope actual facts are in the pipeline. Which is the fairy tale, creation or a science that has been corroborated by many scientific disciplines and continues to be tuned by new discoveries. 0:48 Not far in we are introduced to Dr Crocker who has a doctorate in the study of the behaviour and properties of inorganic compounds, particularly focusing on the mechanisms and reactions involving transition metals. This does not make him an expert on this subject, but sounds impressive. 3:02 ‘Not supported by observational science’. Not all science can be observed but models are created to predict. What part of the creation story can be observed? 3.44 Abiogenesis would be required for evolution to start, but evolution itself is independent. We don’t know how exactly how life started but that does not affect the evolutionary process. 4:32 The primordial soup experiment. Scientists never thought they would make replicating molecules in a test tube. However, amino acids were produced. Amino acids are required for the synthesis of proteins and other nitrogen containing compounds. Given a flask the size of an ocean and a couple of billion years of lab time, the results might be different. Again here we are mixing up abiogenesis with evolution! 5.42 Dear dear. A sterile can of liquidised cockroaches, really. No scientist of any standing would suggest life forming from this and this is not a better simulation of the hypothesised primal soup. Just nonsense. 6:43 Here’s the second law of thermodynamics wheeled out again. This has been debunked by other on numerous occasions. It applies to a closed system. An expanding universe does now adhere to that description. 7:42 At least here he states that he can’t prove either creation or evolution, because it’s not observable. I’ve covered that already. History books are full of now unobservable information. Are we to disbelieve them? In a sense gravitational force is unobservable, only the effects are observable. With evolution, you can look back at the anatomical similarities of creatures and more accurately the DNA. 14:02 Helium. Great we are back with fact. This is much easier to debunk than opinion. Helium diffusion is one of the least reliable of the various radiometric analysis methods. Too many variables that could affect the sample over time. The more accurate involve two uranium isotopes with different half lives and the proportions that remain in igneous samples. Potassium and thorium methods give very good corroboration Tis allows a eath age to be determined to excess of 4 billion years. That is observable science by the way. 15:49 The process you do not understand is that in science, you don’t get to cherry pick. 16:35 Chirality. Ok he has found an anomaly he does not understand. Neither do I but I’m willing to bet it has nothing to do with the supernatural. 20:02 This is a clumsy attempt at chaos theory. It may be counter intuitive, but chaos is not the outcome we observe in nature and there is science behind this. No evidence that God is holding things together. If God had to keep intervening in this manner, his design was rubbish! 22:00 When scientists finds an anomaly or an unexpected result, they investigate it. It may be that the explanation is not readily found. You can’t just supplant God as the explanation. If you did science would not have advance since the dark ages. Example: A couple of thousand years ago civilizations saw on a daily basis, the sun rise and fall, bring heat, light and life. They thought this was a god. The Egyptians called this ‘god’ Ra. Wind on and we now understand nuclear fusion and Ra is history. Finally thank God.
There's a huge difference between the origin of life and evolution taking place afterwards. Evolution can be said to be proven, so it's no longer a theory. The origin of life is a different issue.
@@douglasparise3986 What do you mean by "interspecies variation"? I do want to repeat that evolution has already been proven by modern DNA data. I have seen attacks against evolution based on what Darwin wrote, or what we knew twenty years ago. Their authors seem to be unaware that modern DNA techniques can sequence the DNA "alphabet". For example, they don't know that non African homo sapiens have about 3% Neanderthal (or the related Denisovan) DNA. This means we have evolved slightly ever since we left Africa, and proves Neanderthals were human and could breed with us.
"With me the horrid doubt always arises wheter the convictions of a mans mind which has been derived from the minds of the lower animals is of any value or at all trustworthy, would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkeys mind if there are any convictions in such a mind" Charles Darwin.
Has anybody else come to the conclusion that most of the comments are fairly incoherent and difficult to ascertain as to which side of the argument they belong?
@@Frankdfnthey are closely related as one explains the origin of the other but to say they are the same thing is like saying chemistry and biology are the same thing
It's amazing how lichens can extract nutrients from stone. He tells the story of evolution fairly accurately at the start. The signature of life can be seen in the interstellar medium where amino acids form. We are stardust, the element carbon which is made in stars.
It's pretty embarrassing that he conflates evolution with abiogenesis. Its also pretty embarrassing that he doesnt seem aware of any of the research including experimental evidence of self assembling proto rna chains. The man is just ignorant
"Abiogenesis" is also commonly called "chemical evolution". No naturalistic theory for the origin of living creatures would be complete without it (and "cosmic evolution" too, for that matter). Using "evolution" to speak of the grand sweep of naturalistic thinking about origins, as well as each of its parts (e.g. "cosmic evolution", "chemical evolution", "biological evolution") is not a creationist idea!
@creationministriesintl None of this negates the fact the speaker conflates the specific theory of evolution and origin of life theories. The same applies to cosmic evolution too, it's a distinct theory and has nothing to do with the abiogensis or evolution as theories. Your damn right those theories have nothing to do with creationists, it involves actual science not the distortions, misunderstandings, conflation and general ignorance that's constantly used as justifications to attack actual science.
Evolution made gills for fish and lungs for man we seperate oxygen differently there is no way that just happend gills to seperat oxygen from water h2o really that's a miracle
So where are the transitional fossils for these massive changes in anatomy. They certainly are not in the fossil record. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. - Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist.
@@jockyoung4491 What dishonesty...He said it and many others just like it. Just because it does not comport with your worldview makes it no less relevant or true "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps, He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never -seen- in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. [Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977]”
@@jockyoung4491 Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes: • “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977) • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980) • “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189) • “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
Came here to say that this whole video just sounded like two creationists agreeing with each other in an echo chamber, and even the community guidelines tell you not to look at any outside sources lol. Yeah search for your answers but only through creation ministries, seems like a totally fair unbiased source 😂
But it's more than acceptable for evolutionists to agree with each other in an 'echo chamber'. No need to get a creationist in for a varying opinion. Evolutionists have Universities, schools, and even the media promoting their material. Can't even let a creationist channel talk without having an evolutionist present? The community guidelines say, "Don't post external links; search our site for answers". Their reason, found at creation.com/youtube-etiquette, is, "As the main purpose of our channel is to point people to creation.com, posters will please refrain from posting links to non-CMI material. For one thing, all CMI content has been multiply reviewed, while we can't vouch for the soundness of outside material." Eli, everyone is more than welcome to look at outside sources. But comments that contain links to non-CMI material will not be allowed. But have no fear, the vast majority of CMI resources have direct references to secular, non-christian, non-creationist, non-religious studies.
@@user-sy4ov7tb3q scientific research and debate involves actual evidence and reason for its conclusions, it is obviously not the same thing as two people who have already decided what they believe sitting in a room literally accusing anyone who disagrees with them of believing in a fairy tale. Which is a pretty funny thing to accuse someone of when your holy book is full of stories about magic fruit and talking animals and also claims a magic being created us all out of mud and then almost immediately cursed our entire species forever.
So he finds it easier to believe that some unknown entity called God, formed the Earth and with it the Universe in 6 days and what’s more, this all took place 6,000 or so years ago.
Yes, it’s not up for debate because the consensus among us Christians is that it’s true. You know, the same argument tree huggers use as proof for climate change.
For everyone who says "why are you limiting the possilities?" There are only 2. Logically, only 2. Perhaps there was a combination of the 2, but either we were made, or we just happened.
The Bible makes it clear that all creation points to its creator. Atheist scientists used to dismiss this as fanciful language with no scientific basis. But the more we discover about the universe, the more science itself points to a single, inexorable truth: There is a God, and he created everything we see.
@@kevinunger433 So very true. The sad thing in all of this is that the news media hasn't reported the findings of the James Telescope. It had debunked the thinking of evolution. They knew this just 2 months after it had been launched.
I have watched Dr Tour in many venues he does not state that it cannot happen but that the way that OOL or Abiogenesis researchers say it can happen is not credible. This viewpoint has been upheld by those same scientists refusing to respond to the many legitimate questions Dr. Tour has asked them about their work. Dr. Tour has said in the past he is not ruling out that some day we may understand abiogenesis...but we are no where near that understanding today.
@@user-wl4hc5kv3l: The James Webb telescope has much more clarity. It uses different types of inferred lights than what the Hubble uses. It also has much more power. This gives it the ability to see much deeper into the Universe, with far better clarity. Because of that they can now see that the universe didn't come together with a BIG BANG. A big bang would cause the universe to explode and expand outward from the center. This telescope let's them see that this, "the Big Bang" never happened. They've said that the text books will have to be rewritten.
Is faith a good thing or a bad thing. And is having lots and lots of faith good? As an atheist i just don't understand why Christians think it is an abuse to tell an atheist that he has faith in evolution.😂😂😂😂
because to many believers evolution contradict their believe base, mainly USA Christian that are more radical than European ones , iam for a very religious country and believe in evolution or big bang is not a problem
The best creation story was when man created a god then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, etc but we are not that different I just believe in one less god than you
The best creation story is how sentience came about where man came up with the ability to conceive of a Father God. Just how did that happen from a universe coming into existence from nothing.
So what’s the prime mover in this thing we call life?? Why are things the way they are? Or are you one of those atheists who don’t need a why? You just need to know the how?
All life from the simplest one celled organism to the most complex biological creatures have a supernatural element to them. It’s a spark called “life“.
@@globalcoupledances Did, has professor Dave actually demonstrated the prebiotic chemistry required for a single protein or gene to form? That's a NO. Drawing chemical formulas, diagrams on a white board isn't proof!
@@globalcoupledances You have proof how carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and phosphorus could arrange themselves into a gene? How chemistry managed to get every sugar molecule arranged in it's right hand form? What could a single gene accomplish outside a cell membrane and no amino acids or proteins and no ribosome to assemble more proteins? Do you know rna's are much more fragile than DNA?
Evolution is a Fairytale is the assertion from people who quite literally believe a character written about in a book spoke everything in the universe into existence. How did this character do this? well they couldn't tell you.They've only been groomed to accept the assertion.They've never been given any kind of explanation for how it was accomplished, But again they reject the overwhelming amounts of evidence to suggest evolution is the best explanation for the Diversity of life on the planet.They again call it a fairy tale, Which is also a funny little bit of projection from the sheep in the congregation
He's in a minority. His colleagues do not agree with him, nor should they. Incidently, Sir Francis Collins is a devout Christian, who is also a Nobel Prize winner and head of the human genome project. He firmly believes in the FACT of biological evolution and has demonstrated it to be a fact. It isn't a "fairytale"
@@wefinishthisnow3883and these religious agenda programs love to do shows like this absent the invites to his colleagues who would effectively challenge and refute what he's claiming. That would ruin the party and their agenda 😉
@@coffeetalk924 Yep. I don't think I've ever seen any of these literal 6-day creation believers actually interview a qualified scientist that talks about actual science in their field of expertise, rather than just throwing more misleading/bad science or 'god of the gaps' arguments. Please CMI, just have one biologist/astrophysicist/astrobiologist/geologist/paleontologist/archaeologist/linguist/Egyptologist/Virologist, etc talk purely about their issues with 'old earth/mars/universe' in their ACTUAL field of expertise for once. In fact, are there any Genesis/Exodus literalists from NASA that work on the Mars rover missions? I'd be curious how they even get that mission done with people who believe Mars is only ~10,000 years old.
@@jockyoung4491 - Don't bother. here's an example: + Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure. . G did it. + Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime. . G did it. + We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB. . "Something from nothing" lol. G did it. + Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light. . Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them. + Genocides after genocides fell upon innocent ppl under G's command in the B. . Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED. The ignorance and mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - Don't bother. here's an example: + Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure. . G did it. + Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime. . G did it. + We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB. . "Something from nothing" lol. G did it. + Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light. . Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them. + G commanded all the "catastrophe" in the B. . Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED. The ignorance and mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - You think they care? Here's an example: + Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure. . G did it. + Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime. . G did it. + We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB. . "Something from nothing" lol. G did it. + Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light. . Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them. + G commanded all the "catastrophe" in the B. . Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED. The mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - You think they care? Here's an example: + Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure. . G did it. + Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime. . G did it. + We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB. . "Something from nothing" lol. G did it. + Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light. . Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them. + G commanded all the "----" in the B. . Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED. The mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - The whole conversation between creationist and evolutionist in a nutshell: + Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure. . G did it. + Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime. . G did it. + We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB. . "Something from nothing" lol. G did it. + Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light. . Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them. + G commanded all the "----" in the B. . Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED. The mental gymnastic 🙂
1. Macroevolution is a theory that is increasingly facing skepticism within the scientific community. The evidence supporting macroevolution has become harder to substantiate due to the intricate nature of living organisms. These complexities are so profound that a timespan of 13 billion years appears inadequate to account for the emergence of life as proposed by macroevolutionary models. This does not imply that the scientific community will universally adopt a designer model; rather, it suggests that the macroevolution theory has reached its limits and requires a new framework. Ultimately, the designer theory is likely to emerge as the most plausible explanation.
Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record: • “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977) • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980) • “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189) • “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
@@Dominick13777 I’ve not met a single scientist, especially a biologist that is skeptical of evolution. The only people who are skeptical are religious people. It is there right of course to be skeptical, what I don’t like is their dishonesty in how they present evidence. How about we keep religion and science separate?
If you understand all of that, why did you not learn the hebrew Tanakh with the same effort? You got out from the evolution trap but fell into the "new" testiment froud... Why do you think the jews who knows the Tora far far better then anyone, in the original lqnguage, rejected the man yeshoo, while all of your ancestors who were worship stones and trees, accepted the idea that he is the true savior or even son of the lord / or even even the lord itself?!? What your unalphabetic anccestors knew better then the pepole who learn the Tanakh hours a day for at least 40 years of their lives? Think!
OK I have 5 minutes in and the guys as made 2 straw man statements about what most scientists and evolutionist think about when it comes to origins and he as made 3 false statements about basc chemistry. Is it worth continuing?
Rich! Extremely rich. People who believe in a book that says the earth is flat and the center of the universe. A book full of wickedness (incest, slavery, revenge, torture, etc) those things perpetuated by the supposedly good guy in each story. And absolute nonsense such as talking animals, giants, witches, wizards, 900 year old Noah, Jonah lived in a whale for three days, etc. Saying evolutionists believe in a fairy tale is the height of protectionism.
None of these claims of yours about The Book are correct, and sadly, your bias has blinded you to the point of believing & speaking sheer lies! Had you read the Bible (at least once), you'd have known that it is the 1st Book in history of mankind revealing that the earth 🌎 is round & and it hangs on nothing, thousands of years before Galileo!!! And that there are no talking animals and all the other nonsense! Do your homework, please!
Nephilliam giants!!! Earth is a flat disc that sits on 3 pillars! Adam and Eve talking snake !!!! Jonah 3 days in a whale!!!! Noah 900 years old!!!! Lot fathering children with his own daughter!!!!! After offering the mob his other daughter to rape in exchange for himself his family and 2 angels to escape. ARE THOSE NOT IN the Bible?????? I can go all day with this
Oh the ridiculous stories are meant to be guides for civilization. Yet nothing about democracy, viruses, vaccines, antibiotics, women’s rights, civil rights. CRICKETS
Once upon a time an omnipotent spirit wanted to be worshiped. He created you for that purpose. If you fulfill that purpose you will live happily ever after. If you don’t fulfill that purpose he will throw you into a lake of fire and torture you forever.
If there's no God you're telling me that there's no ultimate meaning to anybody's life You're saying that the billions of people's lives on earth at ultimately meaningless lol Lol
God doesn't put you anywhere you send yourself to hell God so loved the world he gave us free will you choose where to go by your actions on this earth God does not put you into hell you take yourself into hell by what you do on this earth
And also it takes more faith to believe that your long long long ancestor was a fish in the sea and one of your latest ancestors was an ape swinging from the trees then it does to believe in a creator God ! Plus it takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe just randomly popped out of nowhere from absolutely nothing to create itself than to believe in a creator God
I believe in evolution theory but one thing is certain that in last 4 billion years life was never produced out of any nonliving under any permutations and combinations
Has this guy been eating Ken Ham and AIGs for breakfast, he calls himself a scientist and yet can't answer nonsense from YECs and actually believes the whole of the universe was created by anthropormorfic Sky Daddy. This is another fine example of a person with a Phd and in this case at least it is somewhat relevent subject - chemistry - reassuring the believers that their faith in magic is just as valid as science, we don't really know how life originated so a God did it and naturally it's our version that must be true.
I understood everything this good Dr. said, he couldn't explain it simpler. The only thing rattling my brain is where did the people come from that Cain found when expelled from his home. There was a populated Earth. God could have easily created humanity through evolution or through instant creation, God is God, but theirs nothing written of a Pre-Adam creation, so evolution in this case makes sense.
St Gregory of Nyssa thought that life arose from inanimate matter: We are told that God made humanity through an orderly sequence. Once the foundations of the universe were created, as history tells us, human beings were not created at once, rather they were preceded by creatures lacking the power of reason, and they in turn had been preceded by plants. I take this story to indicate to us that the property of life enters by gradual progression into corporeal nature, first by infusing itself into insensate matter, then progressing into the manifestation of sentient beings, progressing next into the manifestation of cognition and reason. St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and its Resurrection
"I think people should be open-minded but no so open-minded that their brains fall out"... hahaha... good one that. Very good interview. Sharp comments.
An interdimentional being, immortal, who exists outside of space and time, who created the entire expanding universe, as it expands everywhere at once. He who creates subatomic particles, the law of thermodynamics, gravitation, the quantum realm .... All of it within an astounding tiny mathematical balance ratio so that it does not fall apart over time to be something else entirely. In the vastness of a truly infinite universe .... Anything is possible. An infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of space in a multiverse, life sprout up. His impossibility is only from his limited perspective. From a 5th dimensional observer time is not linear anymore. They are not constrained by it. To us, this being, sets of beings, civilizations are our, his, concept of god. Prove it isn't. Aliens seeded our universe then. Like a petri dish to grow us in ideal conditions since other universes aren't ideal.
Material cosmology says nothing exists outside of the material universe. If this is true, it's not possible for material beings (like us) to invent ideas of immaterial things like gods. A catch 22 like this is probably why atheists like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say a material universe can't account for consciousness. Since nothing exists outside of a material universe there can't be a god, because a god is immaterial. If a god is immaterial, the idea of a god also has to be immaterial, and since the material universe can't step outside of itself, it therefore can't invent gods. Given this catch 22, the only conclusion one can arrive at is that we're not purely material beings. Another catch 22 that's created by a material cosmology is that a purely material brain can't arrive at the conclusion that it's a purely material brain.
A Neanderthal witnessing a bic lighters flame would deduce it swirled into functionality by a random lightning strike to mud filled ditch . This explains the superstitious mindset of athiests. Its,called the lucky rabbits foot guide to reality
Neanderthals knew how to create fire ...they used tar in the fuel process. They also had bigger brains than those evolutionist scientists and their sycophant followers of today. LOL
@@danielhammond3218 If I assume you were not being rhetorical, my point is . . . Get ready for it. . . Usually, very old people use all caps, but uneducate people are experts at it. On your second point, there is no certainty that oldies are *usually* the source of wisdom, and you have no evidence to support that claim. In this instance, the original poster's comment is as pedestrian as saying it is brighter outside in the daytime than it is at night, and using all CAPS to make such an empty statement, reinforces my belief that usually, very old people use all caps, but uneducate people are experts at it. If the poster believes the Genesis myth, they have not considered the supposed first man was made from an inanimate (non-life) mud pie. AKA Golem spell. Blessings in the name of the farmer, sun, and oily spirit (diesel)
All of the molecules involved with life are pretty reactive to highly reactive. Besides the stability he mentions, many of the molecules would much rather interact with the bath of salts they are thought to have started in.
These talks are always entertaining "millions of years millions years! second law of thermodynamics" they always take things that are easily and universally understood and lie about how they are impossible cracks me up everytime
Atheists could have a field day with this video, the wording is just too sloppy. For example, a cockroach soup will "become alive", because you failed to describe the sterilization. Those roaches are rife with germs and fungi that will "cause life".
"I think people should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that their brains fall out." Well said!!👏🏼👏🏼
what is that supposed to mean in english?
since that is non-sense as is, since the brain is unable to fall out of the mind.
@@stanley6700 lol AN open mind is like to an open wound. It's bound to fester and rot......
An old. Kent Hovind saging
@@stephenboshoff8316 in other words, you don't know what that garbage means either.
@@vikingskuld An open wound is not bound to get infected and rot
It's amazing people refuse to see it. It also really triggers the other side when you call out their falsehoods.
no it's not. they rejected God when He walked on earth; "surely they'll respect my son." but no, they killed Him. we should always expect rejection of the facts.
@@Jupiter1423 Humans have short memories and hard hearts.
@@Jupiter1423It's not on them to disprove. It's on you to provide the evidence.
@@MrLogo73 huh? the burden of proof is one the on who brings the claim. considering you just addressed me, youre actually the one in need of evidence here. atheists have this strange theory that they have no burden of proof, i look left and right and see them often as the one's shoving claims in people's faces, but then turning and saying they have no burden to offer evidence for anything they believe. talk about silly and intellectually dishonest. you wanna complain, but offer nothing for it. talk about having your cake and eatting it to.
To see that the bible is a fairy tale, but not a book of history?
On day 6 Adam was a young adult, not a single cell.
Theres zero historical credibility to the creation myth in genesis. And you were once a single cell as was every one of us. I suggest you learn more on embryology.
@Homo_sAPEien there is zero credibility that life originated from non life. There is also zero credibility to the idea that somehow the chemicals acting apon the chemicals inside of the matter of your brain can produce proper logical inference and the emergence of "true" speech. That is the real myth.
@@Homo_sAPEienoh? And there is for a big bang? And evolution? Please enlighten me with the evidence? Whether you or anyone else that doesn't believe in GOD and creation, I'll say this. Your belief is a religion also. The supreme court said your belief system is a religion, but we don't need them to know it. Religion is a belief in something, faith in something. Oh, and the name of the case is, Torcaso V Watkins. Still want to read your evidence for these things
@@robertramsey653 How was Torcaso v. Watkins about evolution or the Big Bang? That court case never mentioned either of those things, if I’m not mistaken. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District actually determined that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution in science class. As for the evidence for the Big Bang, idk much about it and never said anything about it so don’t ask me. In the case of evolution, the best evidence for it is that it’s observed to occur. Yes adaptation is evolution by definition, and it’s also not the only type of evolution observed. Genetic drift is also observed to occur, and speciation has been observed to occur. But presumably what you are wanting evidence for is universal common ancestry. There are multiple lines of evidence including fossil evidence, DNA evidence, embryological evidence, et cetera. I obviously can’t in a single UA-cam comment prove all the relationships between every single species given that there are millions of them, but I’ll start with a good example. First mammals (such as bats, elephants, humans, et cetera) are distinguished by several characteristics. A few of these being that unlike other tetrapods, mammals have 3 inner ear bones and we don’t have the quadrate or articulate bone. The two bones unique to the mammalian inner ear are the malleus and incus bones. We now have fossil evidence and developmental evidence that the malleus and incus bones of the mammalian inner ear are DERIVED FROM the quadrate and articulate bones found in other jawed vertebrates. To learn about this evidence, I will direct you to read a paper from the National Library of Medicine titled “Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures.” They document in that paper far more than I could ever put in a UA-cam comment. 🤣 When you’re done reading it, feel free to ask me any questions about anything you didn’t think was explained well enough. And then tell me which group or structure you would like me to provide evidence for the evolutionary origin of next. 👍🏻
@@robertramsey653 As for the evidence for the Big Bang, idk much about it and never said anything about it so don’t ask me. In the case of evolution, the best evidence for it is that it’s observed to occur. Yes adaptation is evolution by definition, and it’s also not the only type of evolution observed. Genetic drift is also observed to occur, and speciation has been observed to occur. But presumably what you are wanting evidence for is universal common ancestry. There are multiple lines of evidence including fossil evidence, DNA evidence, embryological evidence, et cetera. I obviously can’t in a single UA-cam comment prove all the relationships between every single species given that there are millions of them, but I’ll start with a good example. First mammals (such as bats, elephants, humans, et cetera) are distinguished by several characteristics. A few of these being that unlike other tetrapods, mammals have 3 inner ear bones and we don’t have the quadrate or articulate bone. The two bones unique to the mammalian inner ear are the malleus and incus bones. We now have fossil evidence and developmental evidence that the malleus and incus bones of the mammalian inner ear are DERIVED FROM the quadrate and articulate bones found in other jawed vertebrates. To learn about this evidence, I will direct you to read a paper from the National Library of Medicine titled “Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structures.” They document in that paper far more than I could ever put in a UA-cam comment. 🤣 When you’re done reading it, feel free to ask me any questions about anything you didn’t think was explained well enough. And then tell me which group or structure you would like me to provide evidence for the evolutionary origin of next. 👍🏻
One thing that people do forget is the probability calculus even on gambling games. I used to play card games both with my friends and even on casino, but what some of my friends didn't quite understand was the fact that you have calculate everything like in the game called 'Texas hold 'em'. One game can be won by just chance, but in a long run, what you are doing is the most important thing. This led always to a pitiful scenario, where usually two or three people lost all of their money and everytime during those 'sessions'. Math is something that you cannot twist nor bribe. It is always the same for everyone in every single time. But in this evolution theory you don't even have an intelligent mind to make any choices at all. The complexity of a single living cell is way too complex with the DNA genetic data, that having a cell with DNA just by an accident won't ever happen and what this bright minded scientist said, time won't help at all for the reasons he explained, Probabilities don't cumulate by giving more tiime and chances. It just doesn't work that way, They are the same every single time.
Molecular geneticists like Dennis Nobel have tried to quantify this and it ends up a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
Genes are not blueprints and are definitely not selfish so the whole idea of going through all the switches one by one completely breaks down. Theories like natural selection work well for micro evolution (birds evolving beaks, fish developing different coloured fins, etc...) but completely breaks down for macro-evolution (one species becoming another).
Taking an analog from the physics world it's like trying to apply Newtonian mechanics to electrons and atoms, it just doesn't work. However with physics, the proof of new experiments is in the future so we have the luxury of studying experiments then forming the theory, whereas for things like origin of species, the proof is in the past so the equivalent of quantum theory for species creation may already have been lost in the dust. Either way, one thing is clear, the micro theory of evolution has too many holes to hold water.
@@jockyoung4491 So now your saying nature has a mind, sentience and thought ...what idiocy.
Origins - the secularists Achilles heel. 😊🙏✝️🕊️
@@jockyoung4491Quote "logical and possible" Ascribing logical thought to nature is not a good look for you.
@@alantasman8273 that's true !
I always tell people it takes lots more faith to believe your long long long ancestor was a fish in the sea and one of your recent ancestors was an ape swinging from the trees, than to believe in a creator God
@@jockyoung4491 according to secular scholarship we can make a case for the resurrection but u probly knew that. and please take your own advice
@@jockyoung4491 I would be surprised if you actually knew anything about evolution. If you really did you wouldn't make that comment . Once you really learn about evolution its a dead idea with no real evidence. So you can keep acting like you know something, or you can go educate yourself on the topic. I'm not trying to be rude, I used to think evolution was probably true. Once I looked at it I soon realized there are far more issues then evidence. It also takes far more faith to believe evolution happened then God did.
@@ConservativeMirror Yes, because we had the same designer. Fords and Chevys are similar too, but no one suggests that one evolved into the other. Instead, we know that they were both intelligently designed by the human mind, and any similarities they share come from this common cause.
What abiogenesis says that people evolved from rocks - as the so call primordial soup is essentially just eroded rocks. That indeed takes more blind faith than I am capable of.
It's not a scientific fact but conjecture based on scientific faith. Take out that bias and you realise there's nothing. @@jockyoung4491
@@jockyoung4491 Evolution cannot be proven by empirical science because no one was there to observe it. The gentleman is correct when he said origin is in the realm of history, NOT science. One does not need to be a scholar of anything in order to understand this.
The naturalist, materialist mantra: Given enough time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain.. The probabilities of one small protein forming by a mindless process of trial and error is calculated as 1 chance in 10 followed by 70 zero's. And there are 42 million proteins in the simplest cell. The longest known protein is the molecular spring Titin, @ 25,000 to 35,000 amino acids. Only the 20 specific, out of 500+ kinds. In only their left hand forms except for glycine and specifically sequenced, not unlike 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words.
Good try, but imagination will always trump your facts 😃
@@Loading....99.99 Always helpful when vaccines aren't vaccines? And believing a person with XY chromosomes can menstruate? 🤪
@@Vernon-Chitlen "science isn't true because of these other things that are silly and no one has ever suggested is true."
@@jockyoung4491 Consensus hardly determines truth. That man cannot make carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus form a single protein or gene. And still believing a mindless process of trial and error is responsible for the forming and organizing the 473 genes coding for the specific sequencing and assembly of the 16.8 billion of only 20 specific amino acids out of 500+ kinds in the 42 million proteins in the simplest known cell. In a warm little pond exposed to 98 elements, diluted by 1.5 sextillion molecules per drop of water. And scientists cannot make 1 gene or protein starting from the 6 elements?
@@jockyoung4491 The facts and figures I present are all verified by naturalist scientists. Srch: New Technology Enables Fast Protein Synthesis An article about MIT's biomimicry of a ribosome. The molecular machine made of 40 proteins and 4 rRNA's. That assembles amino acids into proteins. This sound like the qualities warm little ponds have?
Great logical speaker and great interviewer!
Atheist make fun of us who believe the resurrection but yet they believe in a greater resurrection 😂😂😂
@@noles9998 if they were willing to reject the prophets and kill Christ then of course they're willing to believe we came from monkeys made by natural forces..."surely they'll respect my son."
Exactly, it would be a lot more likely any dead critter or human is far more likely to "reanimate" than building up from raw chemicals. It's still not going to happen, though.
So you're putting up a straw man and assume all atheists except the same things. I'm an atheist and I just don't believe in things to believe in any things I follow factual evidence that can withstand peer review and is repeatable. What repeatable evidence do you have of Christianity that could withstand peer review
@@airpower7692 he's just making an conclusion based off the evidence. i thought thats what atheists were all about 🤡🤡🤡.
@@airpower7692 I'm not sure what believing in things, just because other people (with the same biases) agree with something has to do with the problem of undirected biogenesis.
Unbelievers always attack your faith when they can't defeat the arguments.
EVERY! and I mean EVERY! argument by Theists has been destroyed and debunked by Atheists uncountable times. There NEVER! EVER! has been any EVIDENCE! for a ‘God’ NONE! ZERO! ZILCH! in the history of the world. Give me the EVIDENCE! of a ‘God’ I’LL WAIT!!!!! 😂🤣😂
I certainly not attacking this man's faith, what I totally disagree with is the disingenuous creationist trops he is comming out with, all this has been debunked over and over again by scientist and laymen alike,Alice this man is just preaching to the converted because he certainly is NOT convering me.
what arguments , they fall alone , you need to keep add layers to fit the bible narrative . all animals got in the ark , hey they don't fit , all kinds still not , they get only the babies , but we got so many species , they super evolve from the kinds in the ark , we refute evolution but accept the same in overdrive . We laugh at science for saying non dog get to a dog but after the flood the dog kind originate dogs, wolf, foxes , chacals and so on, but how you explain marsupial on australia ho people carry them
That depends. I've never had a believer answer an honest question. I ask difficult questions, but they're fair. 100% of the time, they run. I'm not asking anyone to lie, so if you don't know the answer, just day you don't know. Here's an example. Lets see if you'll answer it.
From what I understand, God and the Christian religion is for everyone, so it doesn't matter what your race is, or where you come from. God doesn't play favorites. If you want to be saved, you have to accept Jesus as your savior. This is how I understand it, so if I don't have all the details exactly as they should be, keep in mind that I'm not religious person. I believe I understand the general concept, so that should be sufficient for what I'm about to ask.
If all this is so important, why did the events that took place in the bible occur in only one area of the world? There were civilizations in North and South America, China, India, Australia, etc... They all have their own religions, and never heard of Christ until explorers showed up. I simply can't believe that God chose not to reveal himself to most of the people on the planet. It just doesn't make sense. Are all these other races inferior? I think that's a pretty fair question.
@@96tolife Atheists have destroyed and debunked every argument for this sky fairy ‘God’ and I mean EVERY! argument that Theists have given.
We are sinners saved by grace through faith. Scientists are sinners too. Blessings for these Creation Ministries it would get rid of Racism.
@@albert3504 I’m sorry what? What would get rid of racism? And how?
Amen 🙏🙏🙏
@@elilane8627 We are all brothers and sisters. through Adam and then through Noah I was indoctrinated in Malaysia in Races till I had a light bulb moment by Answer in Genesis.
I couldn't deny the possibility of a religion getting rid of racism, though it seems highly unlikely. However, I'm highly confident that monotheism would promote tribalism, which is just as bad as racism.
Embrace your sin, or believers have nobody to gossip about.
The Majesty, the awesomeness of our Lord God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
"As worthy as a grain of sand,
Yet, held precious in Your hand.
You raised me up above the clabber,
Off all creation, I call you Father "
For "Lord God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." substitute "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or in fact anything you want, and your comment is exactly the same. completely meaningless.
None of the above have evidence for existence. However we know that dogs exist, and curiously enough, if you are a dog lover, your comment is actually true if you substitute the word "Dog"
The concept of the Holy Spirit was conceived in the second century. Another construct of man.
You also have to ask how did male and female develop?
God created male and female. Simple
@@jockyoung4491 Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success for the same resources as sexual reproduction.
How could sexual reproduction ever gain advantage to be selected and how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complimentary apparatuses needed at the same time when non-intelligent processors cannot plan for the future coordination of male and female organs?
Result of natural selection. Explained by Bill Nye in his first debate with Ken Ham
@@jockyoung4491😂😂
Not just develop...but develop contemporaneously with compatible chromosomes to procreate with a compatible sperm capable of swimming in a harsh environment capable of killing it with the directed objective of reaching the compatible egg to fertilize it while the women was not menstruating. What are the odds?
Natural origin of life says that inanimate objects (molecules) without brains or even nervous systems, somehow "decided" to join together and become more complex. Even IF they could it doesn't explain how it came to life.
@@nathancook2852 keep coping. Abiogenesis is your version of creation-you cannot just defend it.
Can an inanimate object decide anything?
@@ConservativeMirror 2nd law of thermodynamics says hi
@@nathancook2852the prproblem with your explanation is its just as flawed. Then you offer no counter arguments just like most who don't know anything. The worst comment I ever hear is you just don't understand evolution. You obviously haven't studied it. As everyone knows it's true. Then I start talking to you guys and I pin you down and you stop replying.
@@ConservativeMirrorwell then let's see you do it? Come on show your work and let's see how life began.
With all of the evidence coming out for creationism (especially young earth), it's an exciting time to be a Bible believing Christian. Appreciate you guys!
"With all of the evidence coming out for creationism (especially young earth), it's an exciting time".
What evidence is that? I haven't seen ANY, and whenever I've asked creationists for the evidence, they always evade the question.
@@forrest7050 so you're the final decision maker on whether or not evidence is true or not? Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean it isn't valid.
@@forrest7050 so just because you don't see any means none exists? Are you the final authority on that?
Like Nicolaus Copernicus you have not acquired a faith based learning disability. That is why you haven't seen the evidence.
@@BiologosDebunked-h2vyou literally did what he said in the comment, you evaded the question instead of providing the evidence, he never said he was the final judge, you straw manned him, he asked for the evidence YOU mentioned.
Excelent content, thanks again CMI for making creationism worldwide accessible.
To GOD be all the GLORY for all Creation
God doesn't exist. Either provide demonstrable proof or stop spreading lies.
"We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is nonsense. Yet we cling to it." Henry Gee, staunch evolutionist
It is a depiction of evolution, and makes a great image for the non scientific lay person.. But it is NOT a depiction of how evolution works, it was not even trying to be. Evolution evolved all the creatures depicted in the image individually, not sequentially, but they are still all related.
" Yet we cling to it."
Lay people cling to it. Evolution scientists, even at college level, never did.
Here's another interesting admission, this one from Professor Richard Lewontin (1929-2021), who was a world leading evolutionary biologist.
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
You can read the full quote here: creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote
@@user-sy4ov7tb3q Science is now looking more and more at the relationship between the quantum world and the material world, not just in relation to gene expression in evolution, but also in the OOL.
The paths that science is taking are getting more and more exciting.
@@jockyoung4491 an evolutionary scientist admitted how he saw scientists work, from all his experiences. How convenient, to dismiss it as nothing but "one man's opinion", but then take another statement by an evolutionary scientist as "science".
@@user-sy4ov7tb3q
It would be better to look for the alleged original comment and review it in *FULL* context.
Reading a quote-mine knocked up by a fraudulent source is folly.
If I didn't know the origins of computers, then I could say, "Computers are so complex, they MUST have come from aliens. You need a computer to produce a computer. Therefore, that technology HAD to be extraterrestrial in origin"
The "begining of life" (abiogenesis) and "evolution" are two distinct scientific problems that sometimes overlap. Apologists mixing the two and showing this level of scientific illiteracy only makes the faith looks bad, let it go folks, focus on more essential apologetics and let the scientists do science.
Abiogenesis and evolution are inseparably linked. Those who purport to tell us how life evolved (without evidence for macro-evolution) tell us to ignore how inanimate matter became living matter. Life comes only from life. It is truly hilariously on its face. Don't ask questions we can't answer but we know how it works today. Going even further back, Evolutionists should be made to explain how the matter in that "purported pond scum" came into being in the first place.
@@alantasman8273 Let's take a step back. You do accept, though, that through mechanisms such as DNA and RNA, individuals pass on their their traits to their offspring, and that that process is imperfect (information is transfered imperfectly, changes being what we usually call "mutations")?
@@duckdialectics8810 I accept the DNA is an information system in collaboration with other information systems within the cell working in tandem to regulate, maintain and construct biological organisms That information system has the ability to transcribe information and communicate instructions to living cell components which carry out their instructions while correcting errors in the process. That very communication regulates the amount of variation available to an organism being built and prevents that organism form transforming into another type of organism. DNA through mutation does not gain new information but overtime becomes impaired by the loss of information. This loss of information is passed down to successive generations...actually devolving an organism over time.
@alantasman8273 - 1/64 of all mutations creates *new* information. In average that is increasing information
Thank you for the upload
when talking to people it is useless to talk about eye evolution or ape to man evolution. you need to ask them to THINK about how could 5000 different cellular items and organs that are needed to breath could EVOLVE and at the same time those organs and cellular items are all REQUIRED to breath.
@@jockyoung4491 Did they just decide to create lungs for themselves somehow having the foreknowledge that they would need them ...or did the oxygen say to the living organism...here I am get yourselves in shape for the new world order. Your comment attributing thought to nature is idiotic.
@@jockyoung4491 Oxygen is corrosive...yet life thrives on it. Ascribing thought and logic to how nature operates is not good science.
We all are physicists in comments who refuse to hear the real physicist talking about his subject!
He’s not a physicist
@@sixfootoneistall2002 yes but his logic is impeccable
@@danielhammond3218 no it’s not. He invokes the argument from ignorance at least twice and he provides zero evidence for how you reach the conclusion that the Christian god is real
Why do scientists and the people taught by them believe in evolution, because they are comfortable being a fish, instead of being a salmon.
Because it's what the evidence shows.
Since the first man and woman, we have doubted God. It's in our nature. Biological evolution is not scientifically provable. DNA has order as it was designed like a programmer designs a computer program. DNA has an author and did not come from chaos.
I hadn't thought about the blended cockroaches idea.
😂😂😂 I hope you won’t try it.
This scientist has got a very strong point!
Which point in particular did you think was strong?
This was a fantastic video! Thanks for interviewing this scientist. One of the most poignant things about this video, is that when he was saying he was confronted with logical questions from a believer (one of his peers), that he felt uncomfortable. I've noticed this too when I state the very same subject matter to people who believe in evolution. Rather than try to answer the questions (because they know they cannot provide rational answers), they resort to insults. Hearing such an accomplished scientist present these things, in such a way that any layperson can understand, was very encouraging and edifying! Peace and blessings. Tom. M.
@@jockyoung4491 Scientists use shame and character assassination against other scientists all the time to keep real scientific inquiry from being done. If character assassination is not an insult what is? Your comment is ludicrous.
@@jockyoung4491 Tell that to Drs James Tour, Mark Armitage, Mark Snelling, Kurt Wise and Mary Schweitzer, and other scientists that have been slandered and in some cases lost their jobs because their research went against the paradigm of their peers. Watch the movie "Expelled" for more examples. Get up to speed.
@@jockyoung4491 How so? Did you NOT watch the video and hear the scientific IMPOSSIBILITY of life even GETTING STARTED much less becoming complex? Variation within the maximum threshold of an organism's genomic information (micro adaptive changes), is ALL that we see in nature, is all that has ever been seen, and all that will ever be seen. "Evolution" on a "macro" level, has never been seen, is NOT reproducible (see the fruit fly and bacteria experiments - even Darwin's beak variations), and will NEVER be seen. Why? Gee, I wonder if there could be a CREATOR behind it all (sarcasm intended).
@@alantasman8273 I have no idea why you would consider my comment as "ludicrous." I pointed out that, from a lay person's perspective, people resort to insults rather than actually engage in ration debate. I agree with you that the "character assassination" of scientists who stray from the mantra is equivalent to "insults," if that is what you were TRYING to say.
@@jockyoung4491 Possibly so, but the "debate" in the literature is centered around a myth (Macro Evolution), which has been inculcated into the mushy brains of children from a very young age. It's no wonder that so many cannot see the impossibility that, say, the universe could self-create and that life could self-assemble from non-living chemicals. Even a cursory view at the data, from a standpoint of pure logic, confirms that NEITHER of those two scenarios are possible. With those scenarios then becoming thoroughly moot, only one possibility remains, i.e., Intelligent Design/Special Creation.
Mote and more scientists like James tour are speaking out against this fairytale.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1 : 20
Thankful brother, one of my favorites !
"Evolution is a fairytale for adults" - I invented that phrase. Some credit would be nice.
Actually I think it may have been CS Lewis in referencing George MacDonald
In short, existence cannot comme from non-existence.
@@jockyoung4491your comment is disingenuous and disinformation
@@jockyoung4491 no creation claims existence comes from God...who exists!
@@jockyoung4491 So much flaw in this statement I don't know where to start..But let me remind you that (because you seem to love science) an eternal universe is not the scientific consensus at all. It is considered that the universe does have a beginning...
I find this a beautiful style of presentation.. I love her simple questions as much as the erudite but frank answers.
Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. To admit that they will one day be held accountable by someone or something far more powerful than themselves.
Nope, you obviously know nothing about atheists. Please don’t bear false witness about us.
@@rickdelatour5355
I was once an atheist so yes I have some inside information on how at least some of them think.
@@rickdelatour5355
Do you have a better explanation as to why an atheist would completely deny the evidence placed right before their eyes?
@@GSpotter63 haven’t had any evidence placed before my eyes. Seen a lot of evidence for materialism but none so far for a god. Got any?
@@rickdelatour5355
I can't do that at the moment I'm at work Right now and can't and provide that evidence at the moment... But I bet you could Google "Evidence supporting the Bible" and get hundreds of thousands of hits... I would suggest you use other search engines to get even more because Google can sometimes be quite biased.
That is of course if you're interested in the truth and not just supporting your own narrative.
Amen CMI 🙏🙏🙏 thank you for being faithful to God's word and always standing on the truth of his word
Very well communicated as a well designed and carried out interview. Especially I like the sensible presentation of the topic and how the conclusion is so very well supported.
You don't have to be a theist to reject evolution you do however how to be religious to accept it. Sometimes it can be difficult to put these concepts into words but the idea that time is the enemy of complexity is very succinctly put.
@@jockyoung4491 Genetic mutations are invariable deleterious or neutral. Positive mutations are vanishingly small. If the rate of information destruction outstrips information creation ad by a huge amount how can you increase genetic complexity, especially over an extended period of time.
@harryf1ashman - 1/64 of all mutations creates new protein coding genes.
@@globalcoupledances and the evidence for this claim?
@harryf1ashman - ACGTACGTACGTetc 1000x is *not* information, agree? Mutate one single C into a G (probability 1/64) and you get information: TAC = Tyrosine, GTA = Valine, CGT = Arginine, ACG = Threonine, TAC = Tyrosine etc
@@globalcoupledances I have no idea what you are talking about
Excellent interview, I'd love to see Dr Grocott and Dr James Tour in conversation, they would be able to show the science world exactly why evolution is still only a very basic theory.
@@jockyoung4491 Macro Evolution has never been observed in nature and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils.
Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record:
• “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977)
• “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980)
• “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189)
• “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
Not only did God create the world, He holds all the molecules together, keeps the electrons from flying out of orbit, with His own hands. Some day He will let go and BABY! Watch out. One giant Universal fireball.
Spot on
but allow to all evil and wars and suffer
By Jesus...all things consist.
@@tomwiedemeier4406 when you think about it, everything that exists in the universe has to be held together otherwise it would fly apart. Going to be a bit messy when God calls time out, as He did when he commandeered the fountains of the deep to let off a head of steam, but next time it’s fire. The Climate change industry will have their work cut out
if god holds all molecules, is it the perpetrator or god responsible for the crime?
The problem is with this chemist's thinking. He says that he reached his conclusion by elimination, which assumes that he has considered all possibilities. No one scientist can conceive ALL possibilities. That is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.
@@tosuchino6465 please suggest what may be the alternative. Just like math , when there is no other way we can safe to say that is the only conclusion. If you can show otherwise then please show it.
@@alexzendermarunsai
One possible is that there were forces at the quantum level at work. There are other mysteries that cannot be explained in the realm of traditional chemistry. That's why new concepts like quantum chemistry and quantum biology were born. He is an industrial chemist, who probably has no knowledge of quantum chemistry, especially at the times when the earth's rotation rate and angle were quite different from today. Of course, my idea is pure speculation. I'm a computer scientist, not a chemist. In any case, my original point stands. No one scientist can conceive all possibilities, and there will be more discoveries in this field that no scientist has slightest ideas of yet. You surely don't mean to suggest he is scientifically omniscient, do you?
Time to replace the fairytale of darwinism with the documented history of scripture.
it's not historically accurate though
@rassoul420
It's a mish mash of all sorts, what has been removed or rejected being as interesting as what they kept in.
Which is a fairytail just as well
What bullshit
with time we will see
We need to distinguish between
1) Creation of the universe
2) Origin of life
3) Evolution
Number 1, I don’t know.
Number 2, I don’t know.
But number 3 is proven, beyond any doubt. I wish people who argue against this just checked it out.
But a nice vise guy with a meaningful conversation and very valid arguments.
About fossils, and left handed proteins. He suggests the fossils are young because of the left/right ratio, but didn’t he say hours and weeks young?
(The left right ration is very quick)
Why is it almost only species that don’t exist anymore?
Response to his ending.
I used to believe in God, it was amazing, really an unbelievable good part of my life.
If you can believe, do it!
Narrow minded is people who will not consider anything other than natural origins.
@@nathancook2852 silly statement
Rebut what the speaker said! @@nathancook2852
Wise people will always consider any idea and have varying degrees of confidence based on the evidence supporting the idea.
@@nathancook2852 I know some people keep telling they were Christian, they were raised in Christian family.
It doesn't give any proof to back up arguments.
Some people choose believe not because they are too lazy to find out your matter, but because they don't need to do it.
You put your matter on the table, you figure it out yourselves. And you should not call others narrow minded, just because they have no interest on your matter.
When people learn and find out the answer, they stop searching and they embrace the truth.
What the world offers are questions and they will make you live in despair and restless.
What do you do when you find the answer of a question ?
You rest. Not because being a narrow minded, but because you have the answer and you take a rest.
That's what Jesus said : You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
See? The offer is freedom from all of those confusion and restless way of life.
Jesus said : “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
God knows what we need, freedom from all of our worry and burden.
God knows our need.
People keep burdening their life with all questions that they can never answer, God say stop worrying, come to me and take a rest.
The danger of keep searching is when lost control and you have no idea how to stop it.
Why don't we learn from human too?
We create, and our invention has its creator.
So does this universe.
I make it simple that way for myself.
I hope you find rest.
@@jockyoung4491 As the Scriptures have a fantastic record explaining the natural world around us, the heart of man, and the history of God's relationship with man, it stands up against macro-evolution thinking which has never been observed in nature or the fossil record.
if it is more logical to have a designer then there should also be a logical purpose of the designer otherwise this theory will become less credible. so what would be the most logical sensible purpose of the designer? boredom? a competition among designers?
Those who argue for the big bang theory just refuse to acknowledge the presence of a creator from the beginning. Creation by any name is creation, GOD in whatever language
the big bang theory is sound. it argues for creation - not against it.
At worst it can explain how a creator did it, but so far it doesn't
@@Jupiter1423 Nope..the Big bang does not align with Genesis and how God created the Heavens and the Universe and all therein. It also specifies deep time when God made the heavens, the Universe and all therein in six literal days.
One question absolutely destroys the idea that there is scientific evidence for believing that evolution isn't real and believing in the young Earth: Where are the atheist scientists that have these beliefs? If there were legitimate scientific reasons to have these beliefs, that have nothing to do with religion, there should be MANY scientist that are atheists that have these views.
Based on evidence. Even the apostle Thomas accept the evidence
Make a scarecrow, knock it down, and call it a win.
If you make a scarecrow and it (the scarecrow) becomes your wife then evolution wins.
No random process can create complex symbolic information.
That is a key point!
You guys can't even get one simple definition right, evolution isn't about creating life, its about how life become diverse over time. Why can't you guys ever get that right. its not that freaking hard for regular people. My guess is, you guys straw man it so that regular people don't understand it. This is why I can't take creationists seriously, you guys continue to straw man our current theories because it challenges your beliefs.
Such good basic common. Sense, thank you
0:35 Straight off the bat. It takes more faith to believe in the natural order than a designer. Well that is just a subjective opinion. Let’s hope actual facts are in the pipeline. Which is the fairy tale, creation or a science that has been corroborated by many scientific disciplines and continues to be tuned by new discoveries.
0:48 Not far in we are introduced to Dr Crocker who has a doctorate in the study of the behaviour and properties of inorganic compounds, particularly focusing on the mechanisms and reactions involving transition metals. This does not make him an expert on this subject, but sounds impressive.
3:02 ‘Not supported by observational science’. Not all science can be observed but models are created to predict. What part of the creation story can be observed?
3.44 Abiogenesis would be required for evolution to start, but evolution itself is independent. We don’t know how exactly how life started but that does not affect the evolutionary process.
4:32 The primordial soup experiment. Scientists never thought they would make replicating molecules in a test tube. However, amino acids were produced. Amino acids are required for the synthesis of proteins and other nitrogen containing compounds. Given a flask the size of an ocean and a couple of billion years of lab time, the results might be different. Again here we are mixing up abiogenesis with evolution!
5.42 Dear dear. A sterile can of liquidised cockroaches, really. No scientist of any standing would suggest life forming from this and this is not a better simulation of the hypothesised primal soup. Just nonsense.
6:43 Here’s the second law of thermodynamics wheeled out again. This has been debunked by other on numerous occasions. It applies to a closed system. An expanding universe does now adhere to that description.
7:42 At least here he states that he can’t prove either creation or evolution, because it’s not observable. I’ve covered that already. History books are full of now unobservable information. Are we to disbelieve them? In a sense gravitational force is unobservable, only the effects are observable. With evolution, you can look back at the anatomical similarities of creatures and more accurately the DNA.
14:02 Helium. Great we are back with fact. This is much easier to debunk than opinion. Helium diffusion is one of the least reliable of the various radiometric analysis methods. Too many variables that could affect the sample over time.
The more accurate involve two uranium isotopes with different half lives and the proportions that remain in igneous samples. Potassium and thorium methods give very good corroboration Tis allows a eath age to be determined to excess of 4 billion years. That is observable science by the way.
15:49 The process you do not understand is that in science, you don’t get to cherry pick.
16:35 Chirality. Ok he has found an anomaly he does not understand. Neither do I but I’m willing to bet it has nothing to do with the supernatural.
20:02 This is a clumsy attempt at chaos theory. It may be counter intuitive, but chaos is not the outcome we observe in nature and there is science behind this. No evidence that God is holding things together. If God had to keep intervening in this manner, his design was rubbish!
22:00 When scientists finds an anomaly or an unexpected result, they investigate it. It may be that the explanation is not readily found. You can’t just supplant God as the explanation. If you did science would not have advance since the dark ages. Example:
A couple of thousand years ago civilizations saw on a daily basis, the sun rise and fall, bring heat, light and life. They thought this was a god. The Egyptians called this ‘god’ Ra. Wind on and we now understand nuclear fusion and Ra is history.
Finally thank God.
@@graemeross6970 you should do a detailed video debunking his video
@cam8754 - most of this video have been debunked. People are free to believe in lies
@@cam8754 Thanks cam.
@@globalcoupledances maybe you need to expand your reading. Have you read Dr. Stephen Meyer? I highly recommend you read Darwin‘s Doubt.
@danielhammond3218 - since Kitzmiller vs Dover trial nobody takes the Discovery Institute seriously
There's a huge difference between the origin of life and evolution taking place afterwards. Evolution can be said to be proven, so it's no longer a theory. The origin of life is a different issue.
Variation within a species is true, but what about inter- species
@@douglasparise3986 What do you mean by "interspecies variation"? I do want to repeat that evolution has already been proven by modern DNA data. I have seen attacks against evolution based on what Darwin wrote, or what we knew twenty years ago. Their authors seem to be unaware that modern DNA techniques can sequence the DNA "alphabet". For example, they don't know that non African homo sapiens have about 3% Neanderthal (or the related Denisovan) DNA. This means we have evolved slightly ever since we left Africa, and proves Neanderthals were human and could breed with us.
"With me the horrid doubt always arises wheter the convictions of a mans mind which has been derived from the minds of the lower animals is of any value or at all trustworthy, would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkeys mind if there are any convictions in such a mind" Charles Darwin.
..what about Viruses you find in soil?..are these Viruses alive or dead?
Viruses are not considered alive. They are part of the curse on nature.
Are you simple?
@@mechanic148 If you get the jab...you won't get the virus. LOL
Has anybody else come to the conclusion that most of the comments are fairly incoherent and difficult to ascertain as to which side of the argument they belong?
Tell me you know nothing about biology without telling me you know nothing about biology..
I can accept that challenge. Abiogenesis and evolution is the same thing!
@@Frankdfnthey are closely related as one explains the origin of the other but to say they are the same thing is like saying chemistry and biology are the same thing
It's amazing how lichens can extract nutrients from stone. He tells the story of evolution fairly accurately at the start. The signature of life can be seen in the interstellar medium where amino acids form. We are stardust, the element carbon which is made in stars.
It's pretty embarrassing that he conflates evolution with abiogenesis. Its also pretty embarrassing that he doesnt seem aware of any of the research including experimental evidence of self assembling proto rna chains. The man is just ignorant
If you don't have abiogenesis then you don't have evolution
@@francisa4636 also it's willful ignorance.
"Abiogenesis" is also commonly called "chemical evolution". No naturalistic theory for the origin of living creatures would be complete without it (and "cosmic evolution" too, for that matter). Using "evolution" to speak of the grand sweep of naturalistic thinking about origins, as well as each of its parts (e.g. "cosmic evolution", "chemical evolution", "biological evolution") is not a creationist idea!
@creationministriesintl None of this negates the fact the speaker conflates the specific theory of evolution and origin of life theories. The same applies to cosmic evolution too, it's a distinct theory and has nothing to do with the abiogensis or evolution as theories.
Your damn right those theories have nothing to do with creationists, it involves actual science not the distortions, misunderstandings, conflation and general ignorance that's constantly used as justifications to attack actual science.
I don't think it's ignorance, I thinks it's lying.
Evolution made gills for fish and lungs for man we seperate oxygen differently there is no way that just happend gills to seperat oxygen from water h2o really that's a miracle
Evolution makes nothing how can it,it's not a life or a being, or are you talking of random chance with no cause .
So where are the transitional fossils for these massive changes in anatomy. They certainly are not in the fossil record.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. - Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist.
@@jockyoung4491 What dishonesty...He said it and many others just like it. Just because it does not comport with your worldview makes it no less relevant or true
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps, He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never -seen- in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
[Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977]”
@@jockyoung4491 Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes:
• “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977)
• “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980)
• “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189)
• “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
Came here to say that this whole video just sounded like two creationists agreeing with each other in an echo chamber, and even the community guidelines tell you not to look at any outside sources lol. Yeah search for your answers but only through creation ministries, seems like a totally fair unbiased source 😂
But it's more than acceptable for evolutionists to agree with each other in an 'echo chamber'. No need to get a creationist in for a varying opinion. Evolutionists have Universities, schools, and even the media promoting their material. Can't even let a creationist channel talk without having an evolutionist present?
The community guidelines say, "Don't post external links; search our site for answers". Their reason, found at creation.com/youtube-etiquette, is, "As the main purpose of our channel is to point people to creation.com, posters will please refrain from posting links to non-CMI material. For one thing, all CMI content has been multiply reviewed, while we can't vouch for the soundness of outside material."
Eli, everyone is more than welcome to look at outside sources. But comments that contain links to non-CMI material will not be allowed.
But have no fear, the vast majority of CMI resources have direct references to secular, non-christian, non-creationist, non-religious studies.
@@user-sy4ov7tb3q scientific research and debate involves actual evidence and reason for its conclusions, it is obviously not the same thing as two people who have already decided what they believe sitting in a room literally accusing anyone who disagrees with them of believing in a fairy tale. Which is a pretty funny thing to accuse someone of when your holy book is full of stories about magic fruit and talking animals and also claims a magic being created us all out of mud and then almost immediately cursed our entire species forever.
Why is it so hard for humans to believe in a God...I wonder
So he finds it easier to believe that some unknown entity called God, formed the Earth and with it the Universe in 6 days and what’s more, this all took place 6,000 or so years ago.
He's not alone, he's backed by millions of us who have the same belief.
And that God created the earth, plants and animals BEFORE creating the sun.
God is known, not unknown.
Yes, it’s not up for debate because the consensus among us Christians is that it’s true. You know, the same argument tree huggers use as proof for climate change.
@@jockyoung4491 supported by science...? you mean infallible human observation? because that's what science is.
For everyone who says "why are you limiting the possilities?" There are only 2. Logically, only 2. Perhaps there was a combination of the 2, but either we were made, or we just happened.
진화는 거짓 이론입니다.
생명체가 성장하는 것을 진화는 설명 못합니다.
Amen
The Bible makes it clear that all creation points to its creator. Atheist scientists used to dismiss this as fanciful language with no scientific basis.
But the more we discover about the universe, the more science itself points to a single, inexorable truth: There is a God, and he created everything we see.
James Tour also says the same thing. It can’t happen. Period
@@kevinunger433 So very true. The sad thing in all of this is that the news media hasn't reported the findings of the James Telescope. It had debunked the thinking of evolution. They knew this just 2 months after it had been launched.
@@johngoodwin5420 how did telescope debunked evolution?
I have watched Dr Tour in many venues he does not state that it cannot happen but that the way that OOL or Abiogenesis researchers say it can happen is not credible. This viewpoint has been upheld by those same scientists refusing to respond to the many legitimate questions Dr. Tour has asked them about their work. Dr. Tour has said in the past he is not ruling out that some day we may understand abiogenesis...but we are no where near that understanding today.
@@user-wl4hc5kv3l: The James Webb telescope has much more clarity. It uses different types of inferred lights than what the Hubble uses. It also has much more power. This gives it the ability to see much deeper into the Universe, with far better clarity. Because of that they can now see that the universe didn't come together with a BIG BANG. A big bang would cause the universe to explode and expand outward from the center. This telescope let's them see that this, "the Big Bang" never happened. They've said that the text books will have to be rewritten.
Dave Farina roasted Jim Tour.
Is faith a good thing or a bad thing. And is having lots and lots of faith good?
As an atheist i just don't understand why Christians think it is an abuse to tell an atheist that he has faith in evolution.😂😂😂😂
because to many believers evolution contradict their believe base, mainly USA Christian that are more radical than European ones , iam for a very religious country and believe in evolution or big bang is not a problem
The best creation story was when man created a god then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, etc but we are not that different I just believe in one less god than you
The best creation story is how sentience came about where man came up with the ability to conceive of a Father God. Just how did that happen from a universe coming into existence from nothing.
So what’s the prime mover in this thing we call life?? Why are things the way they are? Or are you one of those atheists who don’t need a why? You just need to know the how?
@@AnthoniePerez.94 who says there is a prime mover. I have never made that claim.
All life from the simplest one celled organism to the most complex biological creatures have a supernatural element to them. It’s a spark called “life“.
I recommend the book: The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Realty Check by Tan and Stadler
The Stairway to Life is available for purchase on CMI's store, creation.com/s/10-2-671
Professor Dave Explains roasted Stadler
@@globalcoupledances Did, has professor Dave actually demonstrated the prebiotic chemistry required for a single protein or gene to form? That's a NO. Drawing chemical formulas, diagrams on a white board isn't proof!
@Vernon-Chitlen - protein was after prebiotic chemistry. 1/64 of mutations creates a gene
@@globalcoupledances You have proof how carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and phosphorus could arrange themselves into a gene? How chemistry managed to get every sugar molecule arranged in it's right hand form? What could a single gene accomplish outside a cell membrane and no amino acids or proteins and no ribosome to assemble more proteins? Do you know rna's are much more fragile than DNA?
Evolution is a Fairytale is the assertion from people who quite literally believe a character written about in a book spoke everything in the universe into existence.
How did this character do this? well they couldn't tell you.They've only been groomed to accept the assertion.They've never been given any kind of explanation for how it was accomplished, But again they reject the overwhelming amounts of evidence to suggest evolution is the best explanation for the Diversity of life on the planet.They again call it a fairy tale, Which is also a funny little bit of projection from the sheep in the congregation
He's in a minority. His colleagues do not agree with him, nor should they. Incidently, Sir Francis Collins is a devout Christian, who is also a Nobel Prize winner and head of the human genome project. He firmly believes in the FACT of biological evolution and has demonstrated it to be a fact. It isn't a "fairytale"
He's an inorganic chemist/minerologist talking about organics and physics and suffers from Dunning-Kruger, what else did you expect?
@@wefinishthisnow3883and these religious agenda programs love to do shows like this absent the invites to his colleagues who would effectively challenge and refute what he's claiming. That would ruin the party and their agenda 😉
@@coffeetalk924 Yep. I don't think I've ever seen any of these literal 6-day creation believers actually interview a qualified scientist that talks about actual science in their field of expertise, rather than just throwing more misleading/bad science or 'god of the gaps' arguments.
Please CMI, just have one biologist/astrophysicist/astrobiologist/geologist/paleontologist/archaeologist/linguist/Egyptologist/Virologist, etc talk purely about their issues with 'old earth/mars/universe' in their ACTUAL field of expertise for once.
In fact, are there any Genesis/Exodus literalists from NASA that work on the Mars rover missions? I'd be curious how they even get that mission done with people who believe Mars is only ~10,000 years old.
@@wefinishthisnow3883💯
The moment life started ,It should be referred to as the "Little Bang"
But Life did not start from a singularity. It has no similarity to the big bang, and it certainly wasn't a "bang" event of any sort
people who disagree with him, please explain why
@@jockyoung4491
- Don't bother. here's an example:
+ Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure.
. G did it.
+ Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime.
. G did it.
+ We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB.
. "Something from nothing" lol. G did it.
+ Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light.
. Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them.
+ Genocides after genocides fell upon innocent ppl under G's command in the B.
. Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED.
The ignorance and mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - Don't bother. here's an example:
+ Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure.
. G did it.
+ Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime.
. G did it.
+ We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB.
. "Something from nothing" lol. G did it.
+ Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light.
. Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them.
+ G commanded all the "catastrophe" in the B.
. Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED.
The ignorance and mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - You think they care? Here's an example:
+ Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure.
. G did it.
+ Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime.
. G did it.
+ We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB.
. "Something from nothing" lol. G did it.
+ Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light.
. Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them.
+ G commanded all the "catastrophe" in the B.
. Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED.
The mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - You think they care? Here's an example:
+ Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure.
. G did it.
+ Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime.
. G did it.
+ We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB.
. "Something from nothing" lol. G did it.
+ Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light.
. Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them.
+ G commanded all the "----" in the B.
. Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED.
The mental gymnastic 🙂
@@jockyoung4491 - The whole conversation between creationist and evolutionist in a nutshell:
+ Bacteria took millions of years to split/change structure.
. G did it.
+ Non DNA life form can connect to non-organic matters and create more unique structures overtime.
. G did it.
+ We don't have solid evidences for what happened before the BB.
. "Something from nothing" lol. G did it.
+ Extremely complex organism were formed through a ver slow process to adapt the condition of light.
. Eyes are beautiful, cuz G created them.
+ G commanded all the "----" in the B.
. Human brought that on themselves. They SINNED.
The mental gymnastic 🙂
1. Macroevolution is a theory that is increasingly facing skepticism within the scientific community. The evidence supporting macroevolution has become harder to substantiate due to the intricate nature of living organisms. These complexities are so profound that a timespan of 13 billion years appears inadequate to account for the emergence of life as proposed by macroevolutionary models. This does not imply that the scientific community will universally adopt a designer model; rather, it suggests that the macroevolution theory has reached its limits and requires a new framework. Ultimately, the designer theory is likely to emerge as the most plausible explanation.
Macroevolution is a straw man. Now creationists are including emerge of life into macroevolution because creationists hate the truth
Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record:
• “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977)
• “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980)
• “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189)
• “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
@alantasman8273 - 1995?
@Dominick13777 - what is macroevolution? a straw man?
@@Dominick13777 I’ve not met a single scientist, especially a biologist that is skeptical of evolution. The only people who are skeptical are religious people. It is there right of course to be skeptical, what I don’t like is their dishonesty in how they present evidence. How about we keep religion and science separate?
@Penrodyn microevolution is accepted and proven but macroevolution has not been proven.
God speed to the Truth-sayers.
Funny how people using intelligent design to create, deny creation by intelligent design,go figure.
So he thinks it got started by a magic spell?
If a 4th dimensional being was effecting our universe, you would call it magic. Because you can’t sense it as a 3 dimensional being.
@@jockyoung4491 right
God of the gaps
@@AllenAnderson-b6t We call things we can’t readily understand, magic.
@@synthlordvr a magic skydaddy
If you understand all of that, why did you not learn the hebrew Tanakh with the same effort? You got out from the evolution trap but fell into the "new" testiment froud...
Why do you think the jews who knows the Tora far far better then anyone, in the original lqnguage, rejected the man yeshoo, while all of your ancestors who were worship stones and trees, accepted the idea that he is the true savior or even son of the lord / or even even the lord itself?!?
What your unalphabetic anccestors knew better then the pepole who learn the Tanakh hours a day for at least 40 years of their lives? Think!
OK I have 5 minutes in and the guys as made 2 straw man statements about what most scientists and evolutionist think about when it comes to origins and he as made 3 false statements about basc chemistry. Is it worth continuing?
Rich! Extremely rich. People who believe in a book that says the earth is flat and the center of the universe. A book full of wickedness (incest, slavery, revenge, torture, etc) those things perpetuated by the supposedly good guy in each story. And absolute nonsense such as talking animals, giants, witches, wizards, 900 year old Noah, Jonah lived in a whale for three days, etc.
Saying evolutionists believe in a fairy tale is the height of protectionism.
None of these claims of yours about The Book are correct, and sadly, your bias has blinded you to the point of believing & speaking sheer lies! Had you read the Bible (at least once), you'd have known that it is the 1st Book in history of mankind revealing that the earth 🌎 is round & and it hangs on nothing, thousands of years before Galileo!!! And that there are no talking animals and all the other nonsense! Do your homework, please!
Nephilliam giants!!!
Earth is a flat disc that sits on 3 pillars!
Adam and Eve talking snake !!!!
Jonah 3 days in a whale!!!!
Noah 900 years old!!!!
Lot fathering children with his own daughter!!!!! After offering the mob his other daughter to rape in exchange for himself his family and 2 angels to escape.
ARE THOSE NOT IN the Bible??????
I can go all day with this
Oh the ridiculous stories are meant to be guides for civilization. Yet nothing about democracy, viruses, vaccines, antibiotics, women’s rights, civil rights.
CRICKETS
Once upon a time an omnipotent spirit wanted to be worshiped. He created you for that purpose. If you fulfill that purpose you will live happily ever after. If you don’t fulfill that purpose he will throw you into a lake of fire and torture you forever.
If there's no God you're telling me that there's no ultimate meaning to anybody's life You're saying that the billions of people's lives on earth at ultimately meaningless lol Lol
God doesn't put you anywhere you send yourself to hell God so loved the world he gave us free will you choose where to go by your actions on this earth God does not put you into hell you take yourself into hell by what you do on this earth
Your understanding of Christianity and theology is extremely poor (You need to do some due diligence)
You’ve never read the Bible have you??!!
And also it takes more faith to believe that your long long long ancestor was a fish in the sea and one of your latest ancestors was an ape swinging from the trees then it does to believe in a creator God ! Plus it takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe just randomly popped out of nowhere from absolutely nothing to create itself than to believe in a creator God
I believe in evolution theory but one thing is certain that in last 4 billion years life was never produced out of any nonliving under any permutations and combinations
Has this guy been eating Ken Ham and AIGs for breakfast, he calls himself a scientist and yet can't answer nonsense from YECs and actually believes the whole of the universe was created by anthropormorfic Sky Daddy.
This is another fine example of a person with a Phd and in this case at least it is somewhat relevent subject - chemistry - reassuring the believers that their faith in magic is just as valid as science, we don't really know how life originated so a God did it and naturally it's our version that must be true.
I understood everything this good Dr. said, he couldn't explain it simpler. The only thing rattling my brain is where did the people come from that Cain found when expelled from his home. There was a populated Earth. God could have easily created humanity through evolution or through instant creation, God is God, but theirs nothing written of a Pre-Adam creation, so evolution in this case makes sense.
Hi there! Please see this article here: creation.com/who-was-cains-wife
@@SheridanFalkenberry
I love your name
Many religious folks underestimate their god's ability to invent and manage evolution.
"non life cannot give rise to life." Said with such confidence, but when pressed turns into nothing but one BIG argument from ignorance.
@antonjoubert You didn't provide any evidence. Your feelings aren't evidence.
@@antonjoubert6980 - even as an atheist one can recognise that the argument is: only intelligence leads to complexity being preserved in nature
No he just being fair and logical. He actually has scientist credentials so calling him ignorant is a bit odd.
Theists are the ones who believe that life came from non life. Was Adam not created from dust? Then Eve was created from a rib? All non living things.
but it is true though.
St Gregory of Nyssa thought that life arose from inanimate matter:
We are told that God made humanity through an orderly sequence. Once the foundations of the universe were created, as history tells us, human beings were not created at once, rather they were preceded by creatures lacking the power of reason, and they in turn had been preceded by plants. I take this story to indicate to us that the property of life enters by gradual progression into corporeal nature, first by infusing itself into insensate matter, then progressing into the manifestation of sentient beings, progressing next into the manifestation of cognition and reason.
St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and its Resurrection
Then we all have to ask the question. Where did this intelligent designer come from if nothing can come from nothing?
This article is a start! creation.com/who-created-god
"I think people should be open-minded but no so open-minded that their brains fall out"... hahaha... good one that. Very good interview. Sharp comments.
An interdimentional being, immortal, who exists outside of space and time, who created the entire expanding universe, as it expands everywhere at once. He who creates subatomic particles, the law of thermodynamics, gravitation, the quantum realm .... All of it within an astounding tiny mathematical balance ratio so that it does not fall apart over time to be something else entirely. In the vastness of a truly infinite universe .... Anything is possible. An infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of space in a multiverse, life sprout up. His impossibility is only from his limited perspective. From a 5th dimensional observer time is not linear anymore. They are not constrained by it. To us, this being, sets of beings, civilizations are our, his, concept of god. Prove it isn't. Aliens seeded our universe then. Like a petri dish to grow us in ideal conditions since other universes aren't ideal.
How about skydaddy making Adam out of a pile of mud, and Eve out of Adams rib? Is that not a fairy-tale for adults?
Material cosmology says nothing exists outside of the material universe. If this is true, it's not possible for material beings (like us) to invent ideas of immaterial things like gods. A catch 22 like this is probably why atheists like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say a material universe can't account for consciousness.
Since nothing exists outside of a material universe there can't be a god, because a god is immaterial. If a god is immaterial, the idea of a god also has to be immaterial, and since the material universe can't step outside of itself, it therefore can't invent gods. Given this catch 22, the only conclusion one can arrive at is that we're not purely material beings. Another catch 22 that's created by a material cosmology is that a purely material brain can't arrive at the conclusion that it's a purely material brain.
Your body becomes mud after a while, if you would let it out in the wild and not in a coffin. It doesn't become plastic. Soo... Ashes to ashes....
A Neanderthal witnessing a bic lighters flame would deduce it swirled into functionality by a random lightning strike to mud filled ditch . This explains the superstitious mindset of athiests. Its,called the lucky rabbits foot guide to reality
Neanderthals knew how to create fire ...they used tar in the fuel process. They also had bigger brains than those evolutionist scientists and their sycophant followers of today. LOL
I love listening to this educated man. He speaks such obvious common sense that it’s mind blowing what people will believe because they don’t want God
When you see your child born you just know theres someone bigger because your sensors are next level
Especially when you discover the kid looks remarkably like your neigbour who is bigger . . . In every sense of the word.
LIFE DOES NOT COME FROM NON LIFE.
Usually very old people use all caps, but uneducate people are experts at it.
@@VaughanMcCue and your point is? Usually, “old people” are the source of wisdom. 😂😮😅
@@danielhammond3218
If I assume you were not being rhetorical, my point is . . . Get ready for it. . .
Usually, very old people use all caps, but uneducate people are experts at it.
On your second point, there is no certainty that oldies are *usually* the source of wisdom, and you have no evidence to support that claim.
In this instance, the original poster's comment is as pedestrian as saying it is brighter outside in the daytime than it is at night, and using all CAPS to make such an empty statement, reinforces my belief that usually, very old people use all caps, but uneducate people are experts at it.
If the poster believes the Genesis myth, they have not considered the supposed first man was made from an inanimate (non-life) mud pie. AKA Golem spell.
Blessings in the name of the farmer, sun, and oily spirit (diesel)
Best interview I’ve seen in over two decades of watching such things..BRAVO ! 👏👏👏🙏🏻
All of the molecules involved with life are pretty reactive to highly reactive. Besides the stability he mentions, many of the molecules would much rather interact with the bath of salts they are thought to have started in.
"Besides the stability he mentions" the instability.....
These talks are always entertaining "millions of years millions years! second law of thermodynamics" they always take things that are easily and universally understood and lie about how they are impossible cracks me up everytime
Atheists could have a field day with this video, the wording is just too sloppy. For example, a cockroach soup will "become alive", because you failed to describe the sterilization. Those roaches are rife with germs and fungi that will "cause life".
You believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys, and you say evolution is a fairytale.
Lmao.😂😂😂😂😂
"The Origin of life is a fairy tale".
An honest confession, lol
@andomuri9321 "The Origin of life via evolution is a fairy tale". Fixed it for you.
They're getting close to creating life in a lab.