Great arguments and presentation. It's obvious that the main motivation of Darwin's life's work was to deny God. It sounds like a personal vendetta against God, almost petty, certainly not the ruminations of an honest scientific mind. It's pathetic. Thank you for another clear and informative video.
Thanks for the comment. However, be careful, they're not trying to get rid of God, they are trying to save God. As Milton put it, he wanted to reconcile God to the world.
@@DarwinsGod In my opinion, those people were deeply dishonest and had a not entirely hidden agenda. I cannot take anything they said at face value. Back in the 19th century, it was unwise for atheists to openly profess their views against the existence of God. It could get them in serious trouble in European society at the time. The worst they could do was to begin the process of diminishing the need for God in the collective mind of the scientific community and the educated public. Over the decades since, they've succeeded in doing a lot of damage to science. The result is that we now have people in the scientific community openly and unashamedly talking about conscious robots, the Big Bang theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, time travel, parallel universes, etc. It's all pseudoscience in the Popperian sense because no method is provided to falsify the claims. I'm comforted by the conviction that their house of cards will soon come crashing down. It's inevitable.
A few questions so I can understand your position. 1 : Did god create all the animals fully formed about 6,000 years ago? Or did god create life billions of years ago and helped it to evolve over those billions of years?
Jerry: Did you watch the video? It is based on a peer-reviewed journal article (link given) on evolution. My "position" is that evolution is a religious theory, as discussed in this series of six videos.
it is disingenuous to base an argument on scientific view from 150 years ago without discussing what has been studied and concluded since then. It is like a series of videos discussing phlogiston, and using that to discredit the theory of combustion.
That's a very poor argument bill. Irrelevant and just wrong. As though neo-Darwinian evolution has changed much - no, it has not. Except that it has been disproved time and again. The EES is not fairing any better either. They all fail at the level of information. Genetic info is prescriptive, algorithmic, formal, instructive. That kind of information cannot arise through any stochastic or mere chemical processes - and that kills all macroevolutionary theories dead.
Hey, DG -- here's a fellow who knows a LOT more about evolution than you do. He's a creationist, but accepts the evidence for evolution. Maybe you should be more of a student than a self-proclaimed teacher. Maybe you should start listening as much as you like to talk: Denis Lamoureux -- Beyond the "creation vs. evolution" debate
Great arguments and presentation. It's obvious that the main motivation of Darwin's life's work was to deny God. It sounds like a personal vendetta against God, almost petty, certainly not the ruminations of an honest scientific mind. It's pathetic. Thank you for another clear and informative video.
Thanks for the comment. However, be careful, they're not trying to get rid of God, they are trying to save God. As Milton put it, he wanted to reconcile God to the world.
@@DarwinsGod In my opinion, those people were deeply dishonest and had a not entirely hidden agenda. I cannot take anything they said at face value. Back in the 19th century, it was unwise for atheists to openly profess their views against the existence of God. It could get them in serious trouble in European society at the time. The worst they could do was to begin the process of diminishing the need for God in the collective mind of the scientific community and the educated public. Over the decades since, they've succeeded in doing a lot of damage to science. The result is that we now have people in the scientific community openly and unashamedly talking about conscious robots, the Big Bang theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, time travel, parallel universes, etc. It's all pseudoscience in the Popperian sense because no method is provided to falsify the claims.
I'm comforted by the conviction that their house of cards will soon come crashing down. It's inevitable.
His life's work was way more important than god.
@@beetsar Yeah but Darwin is dead and buried. One day, he will be forgotten. God remains.
@@DarwinsGod Maybe but his work was that of a pompous and self-important little man in my opinion.
A few questions so I can understand your position.
1 : Did god create all the animals fully formed about 6,000 years ago? Or did god create life billions of years ago and helped it to evolve over those billions of years?
Jerry: Did you watch the video? It is based on a peer-reviewed journal article (link given) on evolution. My "position" is that evolution is a religious theory, as discussed in this series of six videos.
it is disingenuous to base an argument on scientific view from 150 years ago without discussing what has been studied and concluded since then. It is like a series of videos discussing phlogiston, and using that to discredit the theory of combustion.
Ummm, that's why there are six videos.
That's a very poor argument bill. Irrelevant and just wrong. As though neo-Darwinian evolution has changed much - no, it has not. Except that it has been disproved time and again. The EES is not fairing any better either. They all fail at the level of information. Genetic info is prescriptive, algorithmic, formal, instructive. That kind of information cannot arise through any stochastic or mere chemical processes - and that kills all macroevolutionary theories dead.
Hey, DG -- here's a fellow who knows a LOT more about evolution than you do. He's a creationist, but accepts the evidence for evolution. Maybe you should be more of a student than a self-proclaimed teacher. Maybe you should start listening as much as you like to talk: Denis Lamoureux -- Beyond the "creation vs. evolution" debate