@@gi169 I’ve just fact checked one of Luskins articles about stickleback fish. It requires quite a bit of reading and a willingness to discover what’s true. He simply cherry picked the details of a scientific paper and ignored the details that contradicted his foregone conclusion. This is a typical creationist tactic and you’d never know if you didn’t put the extra time and reading in. Yet again, creationists show that they simply can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
@@CrossExamined Feel free to ask for details of Luskins fraudulent claim I’ve mentioned above. 👆 You really should interview some real scientists instead of these deceitful liars who ruin your credibility.
Those that ape others, having nothing original or of-their-own to say may well and clearly do, parrot precisely that particular bit of complete drivel.
@ji8044 Wrong concept. When scientists explain a complex scientific idea clearly, this means they understand it so well that they can explain it to everybody Your concept has probably made 'science' à taboo for you and for many people
@@Dr.LilianRamzy.pro-ID Luskin hasn't been a scientist for at least two decades. Like all the Discovery Institute people he left science behind and became a theologian. He preaches simply minded solutions for the simple minded. God did everything. You can close your textbook now and pray.
Much more important question: whose turn is it to empty the cat's liiter tray? If that doesn't keep an argument going, we could try 'is it possible to clean the cat's litter tray without smoking a cigarette?' (I tried to use the English short form of cigarette, but apparently, smoking what an Englishman calls a cigarette counts as hate speech)
Sewerites call*themselves* queers these days,; none go in for *Hate* as much as those that refer to "hate speech" They don't come hatier than fanatical followers of the queer religion modernism that supposes sewerites to be sacred cows The title o headline of the piece is simply a rather foolish lie-a -form of Elsie-Lower class, trash talk; bigoted literalists are invariably Elsies. We English are beginning to wonder if there is anyone in kinderland-America that*Doesn't* have a PhD, which is why written above the bogroll in English universities is written american PhD's-please take one- *Dr*.Luskin, my arse"
Uhhh if evolution occurred... the garden of eden did not. That means original sin doesn't exist.... That means Jesus sacrifice was for nothing. It's a thread that unravels the whole silly ball of unsupported supernatural beliefs.
@@mattslater2603 What has any of that drivel got to do with cat litter trays? Not only are you simply wrong, you are also pointless. Do you even have a cat?
@@lmoelleb Perhaps in paradise, cats are perfect too, and do not use litter trays. Maybe I need to ask a Cat olic priest about that............ In any event, a way more important question than whether scientists are doubting evolution.
Q re Darwin's finches: When a drought happens or ends, does a given finch's beak change, or does the change happen in that finch's offspring, or does the population shift because finches with the now-wrong beak size die and those with the now-right beak size thrive?
@@sophiafanny The second and third options. Any offspring that have a more advantageous beak has a better chance of providing offspring which in turn will also have that beak, ultimately changing the population.
Perhaps you should not be quite so convinced of the merit of advertising your complete innocence of any kind of intellectual accomplishment or ability and you complete innocence of any understanding of what is what is called the theory of evolution or unrolling or the suppositions of the late Charles Darwin who confined himself in one of his books to the origin of species or varieties, insofar as he propounded his theory in the book of that name which neither of the mutual masturbators in the video have read any more than you have, you sharing their complete innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment advertising which as you do were perhaps not altogether wise. Hoe exactly do you suppose the theory of what is called natural selection works and by what mechanism? That you innocence embraces that also you are about to demonstrate if only by default When the mutuals claim that those that subscribe to the theory of evolution(or all or many of them) doubt it, is simply a deliberate untruth or lie, and a particularly foolishly transparent lie to boot. Moreover in their innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment cannot set out to what that particularly transparent*Lie* is relevant.
If the Bible said that the universe is billions of years old and that evolution is true then you evolution deniers would be saying "of course it's true." You may even be saying that it's only true because God caused it. In other words, you worship the Bible, not God.
Rats and cockroaches were the first to return to South Pacific islands where atomic bombs were tested and those creatures did not change morphology/species. They became polyploid in order to maintain the species. They have known this since the 1950s yet you never hear about it because it clearly goes against the paradigm. A recent redo of fish classification turns these mechanisms on their head. Dissimilar morphology appears to be closely related genetically throughout new classification based on genetics, Completely rearranging classification based on morphology. What it shows is that fish are fish! Fish adapt with similar morphology but different genetic based on environmental conditions. However they always are fish. Tortoise have different patterns on each individual species. These patterns are like patterns on chladni plates. Such vibration patterns indicate that each species is iterated based on a specific vibration pattern. They are quite literally spoken into existence as individual species. There is no mechanism in which a vibration pattern is transmitted via genetic modification. Consider that on a chladni plate the node-anti-node patterns are determined by the frequency, the shape and material of plate and the material vibrated( sand-etc.). However it is dominated by the frequency. Patterns are not continuously changing. You might have to range between a large frequency to get any other pattern. Plant morphology too exhibits thus vibrational function as differences in species.
Why do you use the words "designed" and "who"? We do not have any evidence of design, not of a "who" being involved. People are working on it, but until they succeed we do not know.
@@lmoelleb God's design is logical in that it comports with discernible laws. There is no reason why we should expect to find logic involved in random, unguided, mindless processes.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 LOL but there is zero logic in claiming that an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence from nothing so what logic are you talking about???.
@@maxhagenauer24 you technically could it just wouldn’t be the truth or be a reasonable position. In other words, there is intelligence behind the universe.
@@DanielF892 Why not? I think it would be very reasonable especially considering that we can explain so much of this through nature alone. How do you know there is intelligence behind the universe?
What’s an evolutionist? Do you call people gravitationalists? If not then I’ve made my point. I’ve never heard someone call a scientist a gravitationalist….and the only people I hear say “evolutionists” are those trying to misrepresent things and aren’t honest enough to say SCIENTISTS. Why is that?
@@gi169 The logic of theists/creationists, an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence from nothing over a period of six days only 6000 years ago, did I get that right???
@@gi169 So instead of refuting or giving evidence that I am wrong the only thing you have is to accuse me of being something that I don't even think you know the meaning of.
Great scot... The arguments haven't changed. I remember Creationist textbooks using the old "common design, common designer" arguments from back in the sixties. For anybody who hasn't been introduced to the idea of homology yet, it's not simply the fact that "some life shares common traits", is that the common traits shared by different groups from a *pattern*. It's not just that the arm bones of tetrapods are similar, but that they are similar in a way that they don't share with other vertebrates, even vertebrates that share very similar functions. "Common design, common designer" doesn't explain this, because the common designer supposedly designed both the tetrapods limbs, AND the limbs of the vertebrates that don't share those structures. The theory of evolution explains this simply and clearly. Creationism doesn't explain it at all.
@ homologous structures is probably the worst and dumbest argument for any rationalization of evolution being true. Because I have a radius and and an ulna bone and some guy decided to call a whales forearm bones a radius and an ulna means we are related? Have you lost your mind? lol The lug nuts on a Chevy will fit on a ford… that proves they both evolved from a HONDA 13 million years ago… OR, the SAME DESIGN was used…THINK ABOUT IT
@@Thebravemovement Paleontologists do not arbitrarily give bones these names. We've looked at the way they develop and how they develop. We know the genes involved and we can say that virtually all tetrapods use the same genes and use pretty similar developmental pathways for the development of limbs. We would not see this if we were not related. However, if you are going to continue to insist that this is common design, then it would appear that it is no different from common descent and has no utility. Cars are not organisms. They do not reproduce and they do not mutate. Furthermore, cars are, by definition, designed by humans. Your analogy falls flat because of that.
@@Thebravemovement It's not the mere presence of homology: it's the pattern that this homology forms (over and over again). For example, why do both humans and dolphins have a radius and ulna... but sharks don't? Common designer doesn't explain it (because the common designer supposedly designed both sharks and dolphins, but they don't share the trait). Practicality doesn't explain it (because in nearly every way, dolphin's use of their fin is much more like a shark's use of their fin than a human's use of their wrist). Nothing in Creationism predicts it. But the Theory of Evolution does predict it, simply and elegantly (humans and dolphins are both descended from a common ancestor with the radius/ulna layout, but sharks aren't). This repeats over and over again for other mammalian examples (why do humans and bats share the same finger pattern, but birds don't? Why do dolphins and whales share the same spine-to-muscle connections, moving their tails up and down, but similarly sized fish don't? Why do kangaroos and tasmanian wolf share homologies that are missing between tasmanian wolves and american wolves? Didn't the same designer make both types of wolves?)
@ do you not realize that the interpretation of the skeletons in the “fossil record” are merely an interpretation of events which in turn people come up with ideas like “homologous structures” to explain it? You’re thinking scientists do a test and see the “proof” of evolution. Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. We are both religious. We both BELIEVE in what happened. “Mammalian” animals is a term coined by CARL LINNAEUS based on character traits he thought should be classified together. How many ways could someone classify tools in someone’s garage? You’re not understanding the problems with your way of thinking. You think scientists are altruistic… they are not. Humans are not altruistic by nature.
@@Thebravemovement "do you not realize that the interpretation of the skeletons in the “fossil record” are merely an interpretation of events which in turn people come up with ideas like “homologous structures” to explain it? " You use the word "interpretation" like it is some sort of insult. However, the difference between your interpretation and a paleontologist's interpretation is that the paleontologist has evidence to support it. You don't. "You’re thinking scientists do a test and see the “proof” of evolution. Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do. We are both religious. We both BELIEVE in what happened." Scientists perform tests on their hypotheses, yes. When their predictions are accurate, that is typically evidence that supports their hypotheses. It's not "proof" in the technical sense, because science doesn't prove anything. In the colloquial sense though, it is proof. Science is made up of scientists. You do not have science without them. Even then, science is used to refer to the scientific consensus, not an actual being. We are not both religious. Scientists can be religious, but they practice their religion when they are not performing science. However, science does not hold to a systematic practice of worship like you do. It doesn't dogmatically adhere to a set of beliefs because some book says so. When people say they believe evolution happened, they are mostly saying that they accept that the process of evolution occurs based on the evidence. Young earth creationists start with a conclusion and try to jam everything into their view, even if it doesn't work. "“Mammalian” animals is a term coined by CARL LINNAEUS based on character traits he thought should be classified together." While the classification is somewhat arbitrary, the traits themselves are not. We do share these traits with other organisms, such as bears, wolves, otters, beavers, seals, etc. The grouping is a convenient way to organize our identification of these creatures. Imagine trying to talk about a barnacle and not understanding its relation to other organisms. It would be a nightmare. "How many ways could someone classify tools in someone’s garage?" Again with the bad analogies. Tools are not organisms nor are they classified like organisms are. "You’re not understanding the problems with your way of thinking." You never showed how it's a problem. "You think scientists are altruistic… they are not. Humans are not altruistic by nature." Altruism was not brought up and is irrelevant to the topic. Please stay focused.
@@deepcosmiclove Well, yes, but keep in mind that the fossil record is only taking snapshots of organisms. Hard to show gradualism if the time between fossils can be 10.000+ years. The fossil record doesn't contradict it, but it doesn't support it either.
***you can believe in what ever you wont, even a car with square wheels, you also may not believe in any other thing, but our believes or disbelieves will never change what GOD creates, no matter how much you are rethorical about natural science , that is obvious that you are an ignorant in that, but you take airs of a knowledgeable person. There are some hope for you if you learn on how to read your bible and most important understand what you read, instead of divagating in areas that are absolutely not for you. I do not have any conflict in believing in the bible and understand what science says about anything as I understand how science works. ***
@@morganclare4704 Oh dear. If the Bible is 'true', then we should be following the commands of Christ. Having read the Bible, I have not yet found a command to study or refute evolution. Just, feed His sheep. Six days. His days or our days? Knowing the answer will not change His command, feed His sheep. Don't get involved in controversies.
So based on your Cambrian explosion, you believe in long ages? What is your basis for long ages except in accepting scientific data interpretation from secular most likely atheist scientists. Your entire paradigm is based on an intelligent designer that takes billions of years to get to today. Is this statement correct?
Yes, he believes in long ages, but this is immaterial to the potency of the argument. Stop trying to turn ID into creationism. It's a fundamentally different undertaking.
when you take into account the historical evidence for Jesus his claims become important because his resurrection confirms the message of the only true God
I know, right? Because materialism makes soooo much more sense!! Here's your tenets (courtesy of Luskin) - defend them if you can. 1. Either the universe is infinitely old, or it appeared by chance, without causes 2. The physical laws and constants of the universe were produced by purposeless, chance processes 3. Life originated from inorganic material through blind, chance-based processes 4. The information in life arose by unguided, blind processes 5. Complex cellular machines and new genetic features developed over time through purposeless, blind processes 6. All species evolved by unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations 7. All living organisms are related through universal common ancestry
@@Johnny-mz9ot 1. Infinite age or chance appearance: This statement presents a dichotomy. While the universe's age is a subject of ongoing scientific research, the idea of it appearing by chance without cause is not widely accepted within scientific circles. 2. Purposeless, chance processes: This statement aligns with the scientific understanding of natural laws and constants, which are seen as the result of physical processes that have unfolded over vast cosmic timescales. 3. Life from inorganic material: The theory of abiogenesis proposes that life arose from non-living matter through a series of chemical reactions. While the exact details of this process are still being investigated, there is substantial evidence to support this idea. 4. Information arising from blind processes: The information encoded in DNA is a complex system that has evolved over billions of years through natural selection and genetic mutations. While the origin of the first self-replicating molecule remains a mystery, the subsequent evolution of life can be explained by natural processes. 5. Complex cellular machines and genetic features: These structures and functions have evolved through a gradual process of natural selection, with each step conferring a selective advantage. 6. Evolution by natural selection and random mutations: This is the core mechanism of biological evolution, and it is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines. 7. Universal common ancestry: The idea that all living organisms share a common ancestor is supported by the genetic similarities between different species.
1. Infinite age or chance appearance: This statement presents a dichotomy. While the universe's age is a subject of ongoing scientific research, the idea of it appearing by chance without cause is not widely accepted within scientific circles. 2. Purposeless, chance processes: This statement aligns with the scientific understanding of natural laws and constants, which are seen as the result of physical processes that have unfolded over vast cosmic timescales. 3. Life from inorganic material: The theory of abiogenesis proposes that life arose from non-living matter through a series of chemical reactions. While the exact details of this process are still being investigated, there is substantial evidence to support this idea. 4. Information arising from blind processes: The information encoded in DNA is a complex system that has evolved over billions of years through natural selection and genetic mutations. While the origin of the first self-replicating molecule remains a mystery, the subsequent evolution of life can be explained by natural processes. 5. Complex cellular machines and genetic features: These structures and functions have evolved through a gradual process of natural selection, with each step conferring a selective advantage. 6. Evolution by natural selection and random mutations: This is the core mechanism of biological evolution, and it is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines. 7. Universal common ancestry: The idea that all living organisms share a common ancestor is supported by the genetic similarities between different species.
Jesus is the Messiah Father is the Creator. Read Daniel chapter 7: 9,10. Matthew 10:32 Whoever acknowledges me before others, I also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. Praise be The Father in the name of Jesus. Almighty God; Prince of Peace.
Anyone who believes in evolution has to have the answers to what came first, the hen or the egg. Was the egg fertilised, and what fertilised it! Was it the 🐓? Was he first? Answers please from any evolution believer. Nobel Prize awaits !
@friisteching3433 what truth? Your truth? That's not truth. That's your imagination playing tricks on you. How could that have any effect on me or anyone else? It's all in your head!🤣
Do we need a new theory of evolution? Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian 2022 Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. Douglas Axe. JMB 2004
They're not, The theory of evolution is a very well established scientific fact.. mountains of evidence... Doesn't matter what Religious organizations like cross examine, AIG or discovery institute say.
False evidence and word trickery. Neo darwinist Ms use the word evolution. Isle So, use the word micro evolution,but micro evolution and Janet tick regression are the same thing. Janet tick regression is the opposite of the word evolution.
@iwkaoy8758 tissue? Theory of evolution is still an established scientific fact. If people had evidence against it then it would be presented... Nothing yet.
@@Johnny-mz9ot im not required to do anything, these poorly educated people deny evolution but dont even know what a scientific Theory is, LOLOLOL.. it proves to everyone who reads it the person has no scientific education.
If you are a Christian who claims to love and teach the truth, it's not a good idea to say silly things about the theory of evolution. If you go to mainstream scientific journals such as Science, Nature, PNAS, Cell, etc, you will see that scientists continue to accept the theory and that they continue to undertake research and learn about the process.
@rolandwatts3218 It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic complexity. It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic novelty. It fails miserably at explaining the abrupt transitions between different types in the fossil record - see the Cambrian explosion for a glaring example of this. Evolution is such a silly “theory”.
@@joeschmoe1794 //It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic complexity. It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic novelty.// I think those are explained by changes to the genomes (at least) of various organisms and how those changes and the associated environments interact with each other. If you google things like:- "How does evolution explain phenotypic novelty" - you will be returned with papers such as:- "Phenotypic Novelty in EvoDevo: The Distinction Between Continuous and Discontinuous Variation and Its Importance in Evolutionary Theory" "When the end modifies its means: the origins of novelty and the evolution of innovation" "Prospects for a General Theory of Evolutionary Novelty" - and so on. While those papers don't resolve the mysteries completely, they do show how biologists tackle the issues you mention, and in ways that are scientific. A question for you ++++++++++++++ Do you have alternative mechanisms you can offer to explain how complexity, and novelty arise? //It fails miserably at explaining the abrupt transitions between different types in the fossil record - see the Cambrian // Scientists think those transitions are less abrupt than previously believed. For example if you google:- "29+ evidences for macro evolution" - and go to Part 1, section 4, "Transitional forms" there you will see examples of forms that are transitional between phylogenetically related end points. Another question for you ++++++++++++++++++++ How do you explain how those "intermediates" arose, if not by some natural process involving common descent with modification? Can you show me what the proper explanation looks like?
@@joeschmoe1794 I think changes to organism's genomes and how said changes and the environments they exist in, interact with each other, goes a long way to explaining complexity and novelty. There is a massive body of literature explaining how so. If you search for terms such as "the origin of phenotypic complexity" you should hit a pile of articles from journals which deal with this. While those explanations are incomplete and require a lot more fleshing out, they are, I think, the best we have. Do you have anything better on offer. If so, can you show me what those better explanations looks like? //It fails miserably at explaining the abrupt transitions between different types in the fossil record - see the Cambrian explosion for a glaring example of this. Evolution is such a silly “theory”.// Again there is a body of literature showing that the transitions may not be as abrupt as people think. By "Cambrian" I presume you mean "Cambrian Explosion"? If so, it was an explosion that lasted at least ten million years. And there are fauna that preceded the Cambrian. If you search under the term "What came before the Cambrian" you will find that at least one era preexisted the Cambrian. It's called the "Ediacaran". The link between the two eras is not well established, but some organisms (e.g sponges) spanned both. Finally if you search under the term "29+ evidences for macro evolution" and when the article appears, go to Part 1, section 4, you will see that for at least some end points of organisms that are phylogenetically related, there exist plenty of intermediates. While those are not continuous in nature, they do show the existence of phylogenetic intermediate forms. How do you explain the existence of them, if not via some form of natural common descent with modification? ^^ I mean, one could assert that an intelligent designer designed and then made them all. But how did that designer design them? How did the designer make them? If by speaking them into existence out of nothing, then how does that actually work?
@@mwils51It's not entirely new. It's just Evolution with more nuanced and different mechanisms. And who are these "highly regarded non believer scientists" exactly? How many? You seem to make it out to be a much larger thing than it actually is.
@@katamas832 Oh please do tell me more about this "nuanced" new evolution and how the messy, incomplete and inefficient gene-centric view is being falsified is holding back genetic cures and will be replaced with a new evolution that is purposeful with creativity and innovation. Oh and as you describe these "nuances" to me, don't forget to tell us creationists how this is all "fact" and "the science is settled". There is an entire list of the scientists and further info on thethirdwayofevolution web site. Did you miss the recent Forbes article on "Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out"?
@@mwils51Nah, I haven't looked into it, nor plan to right now. It's just the general overview of the idea that I read. I would like to point your attention to what Third Way Of Evolution says though "It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY ... is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the ... and scientists listed on the ... do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else." (Removed youtube censor triggers and replaced them with "...") Evolution's existance is a fact and the science is settled on it. The details of it leave some room for futher research. Do you think news articles are reliable sources of science? Lol. Especially their headlines? 😆 It's one scientist. Chill out. The problem is you clearly don't actually care what they have to say; all you care about is how you can use this to further the agenda of Intelligent Design and undermine Evolution.
@@katamas832 Wow, the article is totally correct, you are a great example how atheists are freaking out too. I pointed out from the beginning it is non-believer scientists but It is way more than just one. It is an entire movement that is gaining steam. Well I do understand why you are freaking out so much. The entire synthesis of your religion is crumbling before you.
@johnroemeeks_apologetics absolutely... Before we start, in your own words, can you tell me what you think the theory of evolution is, and what a scientific theory is. It'll help me clear things up with you if you may or may not be confused.
@ I disagree with the speaker in the video. He’s right about God creating and wrong about how He did it. God would never use a cruel, wasteful process like evolution.
I agree . Some in religion like to attack evolution theory and the age of the earth as it may clash with their belief. I have seen a number of youtube videos now trying to debunk evolution and are invariably from religious sources.
@RaySanders-vp2ql yes they both believe something without evidence and some just make up conspiracy theories if it does not tie in with their beliefs. I dare say that some flat earthers are also creationists.
@@katamas832 Evolution is that first living creature morphing over long ages into all life we see today. If that is wrong please explain, I do not wish to remain in a falsehood.
@@johnglad5Ehhh not really. No one creature really "morphs". They give birth to offspring who become slightly different.... slightly better or worse off in their environment. Better off genes spread more... so those changes become prominent... This cycle repeats over millenia... and we gradually get new forms.
@johnglad5 Well, it is wrong on the account that Evolution is more than just Universal Common Ancestry. Evolution is the change of traits over successive generations within a population. That, extended to the past, is Universal Common Ancestry, which is what you started talking about. But a big problem is with the word "morphing", that is not an accurate description of Evolution. It takes place over generations where different traits pop up and get passed down and get combined and get weeded out.
Erm, let be a take a stab at what evolution means…………. If I was to research your genealogy, I would find (using the evolution world view) There’s you Your descendent were apes Their descendants were squirrel type creatures Their decedents where rat like creatures Their descendants were reptiles Their descendants were frogs Their descendants were fish Their descendants were bacteria Their descendants were cells The cell came from random chemicals In effect, your claim is at one point your family were fish and rat type creatures?🤔 Tell me, is this evolution or am I missing something in my knowledge?🤔
@@johnglad5 "Evolution is that first living creature morphing over long ages into all life we see today." This is why an education is important. Somebody has lied to you, and you never seem to challenge it. If you had, you would have lost respect for the person that gave you this poor definition. "If that is wrong please explain, I do not wish to remain in a falsehood." Evolution is a measurement of the changing in eliel frequency. In a nutshell.
What a load of rubbish. Please read 'why evolution is true' by Jerry Coyne. It explains the 5 tenets of evolution. variation, inheritance, selection, time and adaptation. It's a short book that covers a lot of ground, with absolutely no nonsense.
yeah you forgot about common descent which requires a LUCA. which is hypothetical. which means its not proven. if it is not proven, it is not true. thus the theory is not true.
Can anybody here send me a link to a real science paper that shows step by step evolution happens. Thank you. Also send me a paper explaining abiogenesis.
@@kennethgee2004 Frank, is not a biologist or chemist, he’s a Christian apologist, when you’re not a scientist and the subject is science and you disagree with the science, it’s not a disagreement, ……you’re just wrong.
Yes some in religion like to try and trash evolution theory. Even if evolution is wrong there would still need to be verifiable evidence of a god creating in 6 days and any of the other supernatural stories like a talking serpent in the garden of eden, lots wife being turned to a pillar of salt, jesus being the son of god for example. I would be willing to accept the creation story if there was verifiable evidence.
Verifiable by whom? Who claims to be greater than God in order to examine his work for flaws? Science tells us how signs are made. It can't tell you who had the authority to create the sign .
@@kellygipson8354I'm better than the god of the bible, alot of people I know are as well... God of the bible is just a pos weak and pathetic book character
Professor Dave, posted on his UA-cam channel a video titled Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin. In said video Dave pulled the plug on many of Luskin's most infamous fibs and distortions of and/or about scientific research regarding human evolution. Rational wiki
@@macmac1022 video have been up for 1 hour at that point no way for a well thought out argument in that time. Professor Dave is wrong about the claims we make and has been told that again and again. He does not change his argument, so he is lying as he knows better.
@@SinisaSpasojevic Sigh. I will say this as politely as I can. There is an important difference between the common use of the word theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory means an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Basically a scientific theory is the highest level of confidence something can be labeled as in calling it true/real. The ones who often make the mistake between these two uses is theists because they don't understand the topic.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
@vhawk1951kl beloved ye once born, introduced unto many shortcomings like lust going after feelings that don't bring true rest but strife and separation from God of the Living. Beloved remembering ye once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now thy shared Feet resting upon the very tip of time. Beloved at least I can do is to washed thy Feet to be given new Feet! Mileage from thy feet is recognize! Love you beloved without shame but with boldness!
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei (Especially the first six paragraphs) *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
You don’t suppose that the Bible could be the story that explains the very stories that were written before it? Or let’s say because “the Bible stole all of its stories.” What does that mean for what we believe to be true about the ancient world? Is it all made up? Do these sumerian texts contradict the Bible?
@@bryanhawkins9418 Feel free to explain why Enoch the great great grandfather of Noah wrote about "Gilgamesh" and his flood story long before the event according to the bible occurred with Noah ? 🙄🤔
Num 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: Num 6:25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: Num 6:26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
Rats and cockroaches were the first to return to South Pacific islands where atomic bombs were tested and those creatures did not change morphology/species. They became polyploid in order to maintain the species. They have known this since the 1950s yet you never hear about it because it clearly goes against the paradigm. A recent redo of fish classification turns these mechanisms on their head. Dissimilar morphology appears to be closely related genetically throughout new classification based on genetics, Completely rearranging classification based on morphology. What it shows is that fish are fish! Fish adapt with similar morphology but different genetic based on environmental conditions. However they always are fish. Tortoise have different patterns on each individual species. These patterns are like patterns on chladni plates. Such vibration patterns indicate that each species is iterated based on a specific vibration pattern. They are quite literally spoken into existence as individual species. There is no mechanism in which a vibration pattern is transmitted via genetic modification. Consider that on a chladni plate the node-anti-node patterns are determined by the frequency, the shape and material of plate and the material vibrated( sand-etc.). However it is dominated by the frequency. Patterns are not continuously changing. You might have to range between a large frequency to get any other pattern. Plant morphology too exhibits thus vibrational function as differences in species.
![[PODCAST] Biblical Inerrancy & the Young vs. Old Earth Debate with Dr. Hugh Ross @RTB_official](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9GqFtYeNWeo/mqdefault.jpg)
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
Shared "i" Am forgiveness, salvation, and the redeemer made possible to go through the "eye of the needle"!
Thank you CrossExamined 👍
For going full young earth creationist nonsense?
@ji8044
Thanks for your bigoted response, your comment has been given low priority.
Thank you for tuning in!
@@gi169
I’ve just fact checked one of Luskins articles about stickleback fish.
It requires quite a bit of reading and a willingness to discover what’s true.
He simply cherry picked the details of a scientific paper and ignored the details that contradicted his foregone conclusion.
This is a typical creationist tactic and you’d never know if you didn’t put the extra time and reading in.
Yet again, creationists show that they simply can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
@@CrossExamined
Feel free to ask for details of Luskins fraudulent claim I’ve mentioned above. 👆
You really should interview some real scientists instead of these deceitful liars who ruin your credibility.
Students will say, who are those with arrogance exalted themselves above mocking thee?
Those that ape others, having nothing original or of-their-own to say may well and clearly do, parrot precisely that particular bit of complete drivel.
Amen&Amen✝️🕊️
@@user-br3ou2cs9o Lol
Thanks!
Great conversation. Enjoying it a lot . Dr. Casey Lusky is clear and interesting as usual.
@@Dr.LilianRamzy.pro-ID evolution remains a very obvious, indisputable (as of yet) fact of life.
When people are "clear" about a complex subject it's almost because they consider you poorly educated and gullible.
@ji8044
Wrong concept. When scientists explain a complex scientific idea clearly, this means they understand it so well that they can explain it to everybody
Your concept has probably made 'science' à taboo for you and for many people
@@Dr.LilianRamzy.pro-ID I wouldn't call anyone who supports intelligent design aka creationism a scientist...
They're the opposite of science...
@@Dr.LilianRamzy.pro-ID Luskin hasn't been a scientist for at least two decades. Like all the Discovery Institute people he left science behind and became a theologian. He preaches simply minded solutions for the simple minded. God did everything. You can close your textbook now and pray.
Origin of Life is all you need to see the absurdity of naturalism.
😂🤣 ✝️🤡
What is the most worth more than creation itself? Lord thy shared SINCERE CONVERSATIONS came with thy shared "i" Am.
Creationism is a position for the scientifically illiterate and delusional
Dude pass me some of that bud bro
They aren't.
Much more important question: whose turn is it to empty the cat's liiter tray?
If that doesn't keep an argument going, we could try 'is it possible to clean the cat's litter tray without smoking a cigarette?' (I tried to use the English short form of cigarette, but apparently, smoking what an Englishman calls a cigarette counts as hate speech)
Sewerites call*themselves* queers these days,; none go in for *Hate* as much as those that refer to "hate speech"
They don't come hatier than fanatical followers of the queer religion modernism that supposes sewerites to be sacred cows
The title o headline of the piece is simply a rather foolish lie-a -form of Elsie-Lower class, trash talk; bigoted literalists are invariably Elsies. We English are beginning to wonder if there is anyone in kinderland-America that*Doesn't* have a PhD, which is why written above the bogroll in English universities is written american PhD's-please take one- *Dr*.Luskin, my arse"
Uhhh if evolution occurred... the garden of eden did not.
That means original sin doesn't exist....
That means Jesus sacrifice was for nothing.
It's a thread that unravels the whole silly ball of unsupported supernatural beliefs.
@@mattslater2603 What has any of that drivel got to do with cat litter trays? Not only are you simply wrong, you are also pointless. Do you even have a cat?
It's your turn... It is always your turn... It has been since creation and it will be until the end of time.
@@lmoelleb Perhaps in paradise, cats are perfect too, and do not use litter trays. Maybe I need to ask a Cat olic priest about that............
In any event, a way more important question than whether scientists are doubting evolution.
Q re Darwin's finches: When a drought happens or ends, does a given finch's beak change, or does the change happen in that finch's offspring, or does the population shift because finches with the now-wrong beak size die and those with the now-right beak size thrive?
@@sophiafanny
The second and third options.
Any offspring that have a more advantageous beak has a better chance of providing offspring which in turn will also have that beak, ultimately changing the population.
@@Moist._Robot Research into Epigenetics says you and Dawkin's selfish gene are both wrong. Science proves Darwin's finches are more the first option.
@
A separate species of finch has now been observed on the Galápagos Islands.
Perhaps you should not be quite so convinced of the merit of advertising your complete innocence of any kind of intellectual accomplishment or ability and you complete innocence of any understanding of what is what is called the theory of evolution or unrolling or the suppositions of the late Charles Darwin who confined himself in one of his books to the origin of species or varieties, insofar as he propounded his theory in the book of that name which neither of the mutual masturbators in the video have read any more than you have, you sharing their complete innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment advertising which as you do were perhaps not altogether wise. Hoe exactly do you suppose the theory of what is called natural selection works and by what mechanism?
That you innocence embraces that also you are about to demonstrate if only by default
When the mutuals claim that those that subscribe to the theory of evolution(or all or many of them) doubt it, is simply a deliberate untruth or lie, and a particularly foolishly transparent lie to boot.
Moreover in their innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment cannot set out to what that particularly transparent*Lie* is relevant.
Such changes are cyclical and relatively short-term, nor is a new form produced.
If the Bible said that the universe is billions of years old and that evolution is true then you evolution deniers would be saying "of course it's true." You may even be saying that it's only true because God caused it. In other words, you worship the Bible, not God.
Some, yes. But some like me, believe it because all the evidence.
We for sure aren’t doubting it. Hope this helps.
Not really, but thank you for clarifying
Awesome!!
Uhhh they arent.
They are
@@PaElRaWhere did you get that information?
@@PaElRaevolution is still a scientific theory and fact
@@PaElRa But they aren't tho...
Can you tell me who these "evolutionists" are?
@@mattslater2603 He's waiting for a tip from his most recent pizza delivery. He'll be right back. LOL
Rats and cockroaches were the first to return to South Pacific islands where atomic bombs were tested and those creatures did not change morphology/species. They became polyploid in order to maintain the species. They have known this since the 1950s yet you never hear about it because it clearly goes against the paradigm.
A recent redo of fish classification turns these mechanisms on their head. Dissimilar morphology appears to be closely related genetically throughout new classification based on genetics, Completely rearranging classification based on morphology.
What it shows is that fish are fish!
Fish adapt with similar morphology but different genetic based on environmental conditions.
However they always are fish.
Tortoise have different patterns on each individual species. These patterns are like patterns on chladni plates. Such vibration patterns indicate that each species is iterated based on a specific vibration pattern. They are quite literally spoken into existence as individual species. There is no mechanism in which a vibration pattern is transmitted via genetic modification.
Consider that on a chladni plate the node-anti-node patterns are determined by the frequency, the shape and material of plate and the material vibrated( sand-etc.). However it is dominated by the frequency. Patterns are not continuously changing. You might have to range between a large frequency to get any other pattern.
Plant morphology too exhibits thus vibrational function as differences in species.
Evolution...common sense...who created or designed what was evolving
Why do you use the words "designed" and "who"? We do not have any evidence of design, not of a "who" being involved. People are working on it, but until they succeed we do not know.
God’s design is logical. Darwinism is mytho-logical.
Is god's design logical the same way it is logical time is constant, not relative?
You couldn't prove that a god ever created anything if you tried.
@@lmoelleb God's design is logical in that it comports with discernible laws. There is no reason why we should expect to find logic involved in random, unguided, mindless processes.
@@VisshanVis correction: I couldn't force a person who doesn't want to accept logic to do so.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 LOL but there is zero logic in claiming that an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence from nothing so what logic are you talking about???.
Of course the theory of evolution is laughable.
Without god it is. 😂
How so?
@@DanielF892 How so? Why couldn't you have it without God?
@@maxhagenauer24 you technically could it just wouldn’t be the truth or be a reasonable position. In other words, there is intelligence behind the universe.
@@DanielF892 Why not? I think it would be very reasonable especially considering that we can explain so much of this through nature alone. How do you know there is intelligence behind the universe?
What’s an evolutionist?
Do you call people gravitationalists?
If not then I’ve made my point. I’ve never heard someone call a scientist a gravitationalist….and the only people I hear say “evolutionists” are those trying to misrepresent things and aren’t honest enough to say SCIENTISTS. Why is that?
Of course we don't call people gravitationalists nimrod gravity is real. Evolutionist are cult members who have difficulty using logic.
@@gi169 The logic of theists/creationists, an invisible magical mystery man poofed everything into existence from nothing over a period of six days only 6000 years ago, did I get that right???
@@VisshanVis
Your bigotry is typical, indeed.
@@gi169 So instead of refuting or giving evidence that I am wrong the only thing you have is to accuse me of being something that I don't even think you know the meaning of.
@VisshanVis
Well, of you want to spout bigotry, doesn't that make you a bigot?
Great scot... The arguments haven't changed. I remember Creationist textbooks using the old "common design, common designer" arguments from back in the sixties.
For anybody who hasn't been introduced to the idea of homology yet, it's not simply the fact that "some life shares common traits", is that the common traits shared by different groups from a *pattern*. It's not just that the arm bones of tetrapods are similar, but that they are similar in a way that they don't share with other vertebrates, even vertebrates that share very similar functions. "Common design, common designer" doesn't explain this, because the common designer supposedly designed both the tetrapods limbs, AND the limbs of the vertebrates that don't share those structures.
The theory of evolution explains this simply and clearly. Creationism doesn't explain it at all.
@ homologous structures is probably the worst and dumbest argument for any rationalization of evolution being true.
Because I have a radius and and an ulna bone and some guy decided to call a whales forearm bones a radius and an ulna means we are related? Have you lost your mind? lol
The lug nuts on a Chevy will fit on a ford… that proves they both evolved from a HONDA 13 million years ago… OR, the SAME DESIGN was used…THINK ABOUT IT
@@Thebravemovement
Paleontologists do not arbitrarily give bones these names. We've looked at the way they develop and how they develop. We know the genes involved and we can say that virtually all tetrapods use the same genes and use pretty similar developmental pathways for the development of limbs. We would not see this if we were not related. However, if you are going to continue to insist that this is common design, then it would appear that it is no different from common descent and has no utility.
Cars are not organisms. They do not reproduce and they do not mutate. Furthermore, cars are, by definition, designed by humans. Your analogy falls flat because of that.
@@Thebravemovement
It's not the mere presence of homology: it's the pattern that this homology forms (over and over again). For example, why do both humans and dolphins have a radius and ulna... but sharks don't? Common designer doesn't explain it (because the common designer supposedly designed both sharks and dolphins, but they don't share the trait). Practicality doesn't explain it (because in nearly every way, dolphin's use of their fin is much more like a shark's use of their fin than a human's use of their wrist). Nothing in Creationism predicts it.
But the Theory of Evolution does predict it, simply and elegantly (humans and dolphins are both descended from a common ancestor with the radius/ulna layout, but sharks aren't). This repeats over and over again for other mammalian examples (why do humans and bats share the same finger pattern, but birds don't? Why do dolphins and whales share the same spine-to-muscle connections, moving their tails up and down, but similarly sized fish don't? Why do kangaroos and tasmanian wolf share homologies that are missing between tasmanian wolves and american wolves? Didn't the same designer make both types of wolves?)
@ do you not realize that the interpretation of the skeletons in the “fossil record” are merely an interpretation of events which in turn people come up with ideas like “homologous structures” to explain it?
You’re thinking scientists do a test and see the “proof” of evolution.
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do.
We are both religious. We both BELIEVE in what happened.
“Mammalian” animals is a term coined by CARL LINNAEUS based on character traits he thought should be classified together.
How many ways could someone classify tools in someone’s garage?
You’re not understanding the problems with your way of thinking.
You think scientists are altruistic… they are not. Humans are not altruistic by nature.
@@Thebravemovement
"do you not realize that the interpretation of the skeletons in the “fossil record” are merely an interpretation of events which in turn people come up with ideas like “homologous structures” to explain it? "
You use the word "interpretation" like it is some sort of insult. However, the difference between your interpretation and a paleontologist's interpretation is that the paleontologist has evidence to support it. You don't.
"You’re thinking scientists do a test and see the “proof” of evolution.
Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do.
We are both religious. We both BELIEVE in what happened."
Scientists perform tests on their hypotheses, yes. When their predictions are accurate, that is typically evidence that supports their hypotheses. It's not "proof" in the technical sense, because science doesn't prove anything. In the colloquial sense though, it is proof.
Science is made up of scientists. You do not have science without them. Even then, science is used to refer to the scientific consensus, not an actual being.
We are not both religious. Scientists can be religious, but they practice their religion when they are not performing science. However, science does not hold to a systematic practice of worship like you do. It doesn't dogmatically adhere to a set of beliefs because some book says so. When people say they believe evolution happened, they are mostly saying that they accept that the process of evolution occurs based on the evidence. Young earth creationists start with a conclusion and try to jam everything into their view, even if it doesn't work.
"“Mammalian” animals is a term coined by CARL LINNAEUS based on character traits he thought should be classified together."
While the classification is somewhat arbitrary, the traits themselves are not. We do share these traits with other organisms, such as bears, wolves, otters, beavers, seals, etc. The grouping is a convenient way to organize our identification of these creatures. Imagine trying to talk about a barnacle and not understanding its relation to other organisms. It would be a nightmare.
"How many ways could someone classify tools in someone’s garage?"
Again with the bad analogies. Tools are not organisms nor are they classified like organisms are.
"You’re not understanding the problems with your way of thinking."
You never showed how it's a problem.
"You think scientists are altruistic… they are not. Humans are not altruistic by nature."
Altruism was not brought up and is irrelevant to the topic. Please stay focused.
Through the eye of the needle NEW FEET resting upon 3 commands.
God created (switched on) the main ethnicities at the Tower of Babel. Easy.
That's why Ethnicities is closely related to languages.
yes ,small changes over hundred of millions of years add up to very large changes.
Jonnypro; you know of course the reason Gould and Eldridge proposed Punctuated Equilibrium is because the fossil record doesn't show gradualism.
@@deepcosmiclove Well, yes, but keep in mind that the fossil record is only taking snapshots of organisms. Hard to show gradualism if the time between fossils can be 10.000+ years. The fossil record doesn't contradict it, but it doesn't support it either.
That you would use the term "evolutionists" demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.
Hmmmmm
***you can believe in what ever you wont, even a car with square wheels, you also may not believe in any other thing, but our believes or disbelieves will never change what GOD creates, no matter how much you are rethorical about natural science , that is obvious that you are an ignorant in that, but you take airs of a knowledgeable person. There are some hope for you if you learn on how to read your bible and most important understand what you read, instead of divagating in areas that are absolutely not for you. I do not have any conflict in believing in the bible and understand what science says about anything as I understand how science works. ***
Why say? Lord resting upon thy FEET RESTING UPON.
I have never believed in evolution
I have never believed in a mud figurine instantly becoming a man only a few thousand years ago
@trumpbellend6717 you are looser
Our Lord commanded us to love God, love neighbours, feed the hungry.
Knowing whether or not the hungry evolved from other life forms is irrelevant.
No it's not. It's SIX DAYS of Creation, or it's not. The Bible is true or it's not. cheers
@@morganclare4704 Oh dear. If the Bible is 'true', then we should be following the commands of Christ. Having read the Bible, I have not yet found a command to study or refute evolution. Just, feed His sheep.
Six days. His days or our days? Knowing the answer will not change His command, feed His sheep. Don't get involved in controversies.
Yes feed His sheep: Very good! But to feed some one Evolution is to feed them dung.
@@morganclare4704 Well, OK, so you haven't evolved.
I cannot recall a conversation with friends where the subject has arisen.
@@morganclare4704Yet evolution is a fact... and the silly supernatural claims of Christianity are not...
So based on your Cambrian explosion, you believe in long ages? What is your basis for long ages except in accepting scientific data interpretation from secular most likely atheist scientists. Your entire paradigm is based on an intelligent designer that takes billions of years to get to today. Is this statement correct?
Yes, he believes in long ages, but this is immaterial to the potency of the argument.
Stop trying to turn ID into creationism. It's a fundamentally different undertaking.
Can you use science to show that it is wrong?
So in ID can you simply and clearly declare who the intelligent designer is? Please answer: God or nature???
That is beyond the scope of what ID can predict
Nature as an intelligent agent? You got to be kidding right?
when you take into account the historical evidence for Jesus his claims become important because his resurrection confirms the message of the only true God
@@AJTrambergWhat can ID predict?
@@beste7187 It can predict continued donations from the poorly educated.
Because it stands to logic and reason that a celestial wizard shook the universe out of his sleeve.
I know, right? Because materialism makes soooo much more sense!! Here's your tenets (courtesy of Luskin) - defend them if you can.
1. Either the universe is infinitely old, or it appeared by chance, without causes
2. The physical laws and constants of the universe were produced by purposeless, chance processes
3. Life originated from inorganic material through blind, chance-based processes
4. The information in life arose by unguided, blind processes
5. Complex cellular machines and new genetic features developed over time through purposeless, blind processes
6. All species evolved by unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations
7. All living organisms are related through universal common ancestry
@@Johnny-mz9ot 1. Infinite age or chance appearance: This statement presents a dichotomy. While the universe's age is a subject of ongoing scientific research, the idea of it appearing by chance without cause is not widely accepted within scientific circles.
2. Purposeless, chance processes: This statement aligns with the scientific understanding of natural laws and constants, which are seen as the result of physical processes that have unfolded over vast cosmic timescales.
3. Life from inorganic material: The theory of abiogenesis proposes that life arose from non-living matter through a series of chemical reactions. While the exact details of this process are still being investigated, there is substantial evidence to support this idea.
4. Information arising from blind processes: The information encoded in DNA is a complex system that has evolved over billions of years through natural selection and genetic mutations. While the origin of the first self-replicating molecule remains a mystery, the subsequent evolution of life can be explained by natural processes.
5. Complex cellular machines and genetic features: These structures and functions have evolved through a gradual process of natural selection, with each step conferring a selective advantage.
6. Evolution by natural selection and random mutations: This is the core mechanism of biological evolution, and it is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines.
7. Universal common ancestry: The idea that all living organisms share a common ancestor is supported by the genetic similarities between different species.
1. Infinite age or chance appearance: This statement presents a dichotomy. While the universe's age is a subject of ongoing scientific research, the idea of it appearing by chance without cause is not widely accepted within scientific circles.
2. Purposeless, chance processes: This statement aligns with the scientific understanding of natural laws and constants, which are seen as the result of physical processes that have unfolded over vast cosmic timescales.
3. Life from inorganic material: The theory of abiogenesis proposes that life arose from non-living matter through a series of chemical reactions. While the exact details of this process are still being investigated, there is substantial evidence to support this idea.
4. Information arising from blind processes: The information encoded in DNA is a complex system that has evolved over billions of years through natural selection and genetic mutations. While the origin of the first self-replicating molecule remains a mystery, the subsequent evolution of life can be explained by natural processes.
5. Complex cellular machines and genetic features: These structures and functions have evolved through a gradual process of natural selection, with each step conferring a selective advantage.
6. Evolution by natural selection and random mutations: This is the core mechanism of biological evolution, and it is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines.
7. Universal common ancestry: The idea that all living organisms share a common ancestor is supported by the genetic similarities between different species.
@@Johnny-mz9otanswer in reactions
@@walterdaems57 Nice non-response! 👍
Jesus is the Messiah Father is the Creator.
Read Daniel chapter 7: 9,10.
Matthew 10:32
Whoever acknowledges me before others, I also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.
Praise be The Father in the name of Jesus. Almighty God; Prince of Peace.
Anyone who believes in evolution has to have the answers to what came first, the hen or the egg. Was the egg fertilised, and what fertilised it! Was it the 🐓? Was he first? Answers please from any evolution believer. Nobel Prize awaits !
No Nobel Prize for answering such a trvial question. Its know for long that the egg came before the hen.
@friisteching3433 you're cracked just like that imaginary egg you believe in.
@@gerardmoloney9979oh, what is wrong? Did the truth hurt you?
@friisteching3433 what truth? Your truth? That's not truth. That's your imagination playing tricks on you. How could that have any effect on me or anyone else? It's all in your head!🤣
@gerardmoloney9979 Truth is what conforms with objective reality. That way truth is independent on your opinion and imagination.
Do we need a new theory of evolution?
Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian 2022
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme
Folds. Douglas Axe. JMB 2004
They're not,
The theory of evolution is a very well established scientific fact.. mountains of evidence... Doesn't matter what Religious organizations like cross examine, AIG or discovery institute say.
False evidence and word trickery. Neo darwinist Ms use the word evolution. Isle So, use the word micro evolution,but micro evolution and Janet tick regression are the same thing. Janet tick regression is the opposite of the word evolution.
@iwkaoy8758 tissue?
Theory of evolution is still an established scientific fact.
If people had evidence against it then it would be presented... Nothing yet.
And yet you have not a single valid thread defending it properly, only more unsubstantiated assertions!
@@Johnny-mz9ot im not required to do anything, these poorly educated people deny evolution but dont even know what a scientific Theory is, LOLOLOL.. it proves to everyone who reads it the person has no scientific education.
They aren't.... yall are lying about this.
😂
@@PaElRaEvolution is here to stay.
@@PaElRa Oh.... I see you're just a goofball.
Thanks for the clown show 🤡
If you are a Christian who claims to love and teach the truth, it's not a good idea to say silly things about the theory of evolution. If you go to mainstream scientific journals such as Science, Nature, PNAS, Cell, etc, you will see that scientists continue to accept the theory and that they continue to undertake research and learn about the process.
The theory of evolution is silly.
@@joeschmoe1794
In what sense is it silly? Can you list a couple of points in support of your assertion and a brief explanation justifying each point?
@rolandwatts3218 It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic complexity. It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic novelty. It fails miserably at explaining the abrupt transitions between different types in the fossil record - see the Cambrian explosion for a glaring example of this. Evolution is such a silly “theory”.
@@joeschmoe1794
//It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic complexity. It fails miserably at explaining phenotypic novelty.//
I think those are explained by changes to the genomes (at least) of various organisms and how those changes and the associated environments interact with each other.
If you google things like:-
"How does evolution explain phenotypic novelty"
- you will be returned with papers such as:-
"Phenotypic Novelty in EvoDevo: The Distinction Between Continuous and Discontinuous Variation and Its Importance in Evolutionary Theory"
"When the end modifies its means: the origins of novelty and the evolution of innovation"
"Prospects for a General Theory of Evolutionary Novelty"
- and so on.
While those papers don't resolve the mysteries completely, they do show how biologists tackle the issues you mention, and in ways that are scientific.
A question for you
++++++++++++++
Do you have alternative mechanisms you can offer to explain how complexity, and novelty arise?
//It fails miserably at explaining the abrupt transitions between different types in the fossil record - see the Cambrian //
Scientists think those transitions are less abrupt than previously believed.
For example if you google:-
"29+ evidences for macro evolution"
- and go to Part 1, section 4, "Transitional forms" there you will see examples of forms that are transitional between phylogenetically related end points.
Another question for you
++++++++++++++++++++
How do you explain how those "intermediates" arose, if not by some natural process involving common descent with modification? Can you show me what the proper explanation looks like?
@@joeschmoe1794
I think changes to organism's genomes and how said changes and the environments they exist in, interact with each other, goes a long way to explaining complexity and novelty. There is a massive body of literature explaining how so. If you search for terms such as "the origin of phenotypic complexity" you should hit a pile of articles from journals which deal with this. While those explanations are incomplete and require a lot more fleshing out, they are, I think, the best we have.
Do you have anything better on offer. If so, can you show me what those better explanations looks like?
//It fails miserably at explaining the abrupt transitions between different types in the fossil record - see the Cambrian explosion for a glaring example of this. Evolution is such a silly “theory”.//
Again there is a body of literature showing that the transitions may not be as abrupt as people think. By "Cambrian" I presume you mean "Cambrian Explosion"? If so, it was an explosion that lasted at least ten million years. And there are fauna that preceded the Cambrian. If you search under the term "What came before the Cambrian" you will find that at least one era preexisted the Cambrian. It's called the "Ediacaran". The link between the two eras is not well established, but some organisms (e.g sponges) spanned both. Finally if you search under the term "29+ evidences for macro evolution" and when the article appears, go to Part 1, section 4, you will see that for at least some end points of organisms that are phylogenetically related, there exist plenty of intermediates. While those are not continuous in nature, they do show the existence of phylogenetic intermediate forms.
How do you explain the existence of them, if not via some form of natural common descent with modification?
^^ I mean, one could assert that an intelligent designer designed and then made them all. But how did that designer design them? How did the designer make them? If by speaking them into existence out of nothing, then how does that actually work?
The scientific community has no doubt whatsoever about the veracity of either evolution or evolutionary theory.
That must be why so many highly regarded non believer scientists are calling for an entirely new syntheses called thethirdwayofevolution. LOL
@@mwils51It's not entirely new. It's just Evolution with more nuanced and different mechanisms.
And who are these "highly regarded non believer scientists" exactly? How many? You seem to make it out to be a much larger thing than it actually is.
@@katamas832 Oh please do tell me more about this "nuanced" new evolution and how the messy, incomplete and inefficient gene-centric view is being falsified is holding back genetic cures and will be replaced with a new evolution that is purposeful with creativity and innovation. Oh and as you describe these "nuances" to me, don't forget to tell us creationists how this is all "fact" and "the science is settled".
There is an entire list of the scientists and further info on thethirdwayofevolution web site.
Did you miss the recent Forbes article on "Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out"?
@@mwils51Nah, I haven't looked into it, nor plan to right now. It's just the general overview of the idea that I read.
I would like to point your attention to what Third Way Of Evolution says though "It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY ... is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the ... and scientists listed on the ... do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else." (Removed youtube censor triggers and replaced them with "...")
Evolution's existance is a fact and the science is settled on it. The details of it leave some room for futher research.
Do you think news articles are reliable sources of science? Lol. Especially their headlines? 😆 It's one scientist. Chill out. The problem is you clearly don't actually care what they have to say; all you care about is how you can use this to further the agenda of Intelligent Design and undermine Evolution.
@@katamas832 Wow, the article is totally correct, you are a great example how atheists are freaking out too. I pointed out from the beginning it is non-believer scientists but It is way more than just one. It is an entire movement that is gaining steam. Well I do understand why you are freaking out so much. The entire synthesis of your religion is crumbling before you.
Ive never met a creationist / intelligent design slob that actually knew what a scientific theory is.
I've never met / Seen an intelligent creationist* lol 😅
@logicalatheist1065 Would you be willing to have a friendly discussion about Creation vs Evolution?
@johnroemeeks_apologetics absolutely.
@johnroemeeks_apologetics absolutely...
Before we start, in your own words, can you tell me what you think the theory of evolution is, and what a scientific theory is. It'll help me clear things up with you if you may or may not be confused.
@@logicalatheist1065
I've never met an atheist who wasn't a pseudoscience worshipper 😁....
The Cambrian explosion NEVER HAPPENED…
All of those animals were present from the beginning of CREATION…
Not only does the Discovery Institute accept the Cambrian explosion but they claim it represents the beginning of life.
@ if they do “accept” this lie then they are incorrect.
It exists in the imagination, not in earths history.
@@Thebravemovement
Then this video is nonsense.
Casey Luskin is their spokesperson.
@ I disagree with the speaker in the video.
He’s right about God creating and wrong about how He did it.
God would never use a cruel, wasteful process like evolution.
@@Thebravemovement
Why not?
It used a flood to kill everything which failed to get rid of wickedness.
Long story short: they don't.
Evolution is still a solid theory of science, no matter how much creationists like to pretend otherwise.
I agree . Some in religion like to attack evolution theory and the age of the earth as it may clash with their belief. I have seen a number of youtube videos now trying to debunk evolution and are invariably from religious sources.
@@silverfire01 Creationists and flat earthers should join forces. Dumb and Dumber.
@RaySanders-vp2ql yes they both believe something without evidence and some just make up conspiracy theories if it does not tie in with their beliefs. I dare say that some flat earthers are also creationists.
@@RaySanders-vp2qlMost Flat Earthers are creationists actually
@@katamas832 They make a great couple. Couple of idiots.
Nobody honest and intelligent doubts evolution any more than they doubt gravity.
Grow up kid
@@PaElRa When you don't have an argument then just attack the person not his argument.
Nobody who is honest or intelligent buys into the delusion.
@paulenzor6993 No, there are honest and intelligent people who believe in creationism.
You might notice; nobody ever says the theory of Gravity is as well established as Darwinism.
Not a single creationist understands Evolution
@@katamas832 Evolution is that first living creature morphing over long ages into all life we see today. If that is wrong please explain, I do not wish to remain in a falsehood.
@@johnglad5Ehhh not really.
No one creature really "morphs".
They give birth to offspring who become slightly different.... slightly better or worse off in their environment.
Better off genes spread more... so those changes become prominent...
This cycle repeats over millenia... and we gradually get new forms.
@johnglad5 Well, it is wrong on the account that Evolution is more than just Universal Common Ancestry. Evolution is the change of traits over successive generations within a population. That, extended to the past, is Universal Common Ancestry, which is what you started talking about.
But a big problem is with the word "morphing", that is not an accurate description of Evolution. It takes place over generations where different traits pop up and get passed down and get combined and get weeded out.
Erm, let be a take a stab at what evolution means………….
If I was to research your genealogy, I would find (using the evolution world view)
There’s you
Your descendent were apes
Their descendants were squirrel type creatures
Their decedents where rat like creatures
Their descendants were reptiles
Their descendants were frogs
Their descendants were fish
Their descendants were bacteria
Their descendants were cells
The cell came from random chemicals
In effect, your claim is at one point your family were fish and rat type creatures?🤔
Tell me, is this evolution or am I missing something in my knowledge?🤔
@@johnglad5 "Evolution is that first living creature morphing over long ages into all life we see today." This is why an education is important. Somebody has lied to you, and you never seem to challenge it. If you had, you would have lost respect for the person that gave you this poor definition.
"If that is wrong please explain, I do not wish to remain in a falsehood." Evolution is a measurement of the changing in eliel frequency. In a nutshell.
What a load of rubbish. Please read 'why evolution is true' by Jerry Coyne. It explains the 5 tenets of evolution. variation, inheritance, selection, time and adaptation. It's a short book that covers a lot of ground, with absolutely no nonsense.
yeah you forgot about common descent which requires a LUCA.
which is hypothetical.
which means its not proven.
if it is not proven, it is not true.
thus the theory is not true.
and the things that you mentioned are perfectly ok with God creating kinds that undergo those things that you mentioned
@@HS-zk5nn So then the Christian God is not true, then... by you're own logic.
Thanks, HS!
@@HS-zk5nn That's not true unless you can prove this tho...
So your empty God claim is dismissed...
@@mattslater2603 God is proven.
see logic.
see maths.
see physics.
see history testimonies.
try again?
Can anybody here send me a link to a real science paper that shows step by step evolution happens. Thank you.
Also send me a paper explaining abiogenesis.
what do you mean by real science paper? was the information discussed here not scientific?
Type in ……
NASA ( definition of life)
@@kennethgee2004
UA-cam is not science, it’s social media
@@Obeytheroadrules well that does not mean that real science is not being talked about does it?
@@kennethgee2004
Frank, is not a biologist or chemist, he’s a Christian apologist, when you’re not a scientist and the subject is science and you disagree with the science, it’s not a disagreement, ……you’re just wrong.
who are we to say what God makes is junk lol i always said is not junk perhaps the real code.
Yes some in religion like to try and trash evolution theory. Even if evolution is wrong there would still need to be verifiable evidence of a god creating in 6 days and any of the other supernatural stories like a talking serpent in the garden of eden, lots wife being turned to a pillar of salt, jesus being the son of god for example. I would be willing to accept the creation story if there was verifiable evidence.
What would you consider verifiable evidence?
Verifiable by whom? Who claims to be greater than God in order to examine his work for flaws? Science tells us how signs are made. It can't tell you who had the authority to create the sign .
@@kellygipson8354I'm better than the god of the bible, alot of people I know are as well...
God of the bible is just a pos weak and pathetic book character
Professor Dave, posted on his UA-cam channel a video titled Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin. In said video Dave pulled the plug on many of Luskin's most infamous fibs and distortions of and/or about scientific research regarding human evolution.
Rational wiki
lies
@@Moist._Robot Professor Dave....😆😅🤣🤣🤣
Professor Dave and Bill Nye da science guy are to Nincompoops in the same clown car.
@@kennethgee2004 ??????? The video exists, and that is what he does in the video. In what way was he lying?
@@macmac1022 video have been up for 1 hour at that point no way for a well thought out argument in that time. Professor Dave is wrong about the claims we make and has been told that again and again. He does not change his argument, so he is lying as he knows better.
They aren’t. The theory of evolution is a fact.
Send me a link to a real science paper that explains evolution.
@@alfredomenendez8703all you need is a 3rd grade education. Like, elementary textbooks do that.
Still it's called "theory", not a "law". That alone means it's not proven.
Who desging the spiciest who is evolving...?
Apply commun sense...
@@SinisaSpasojevic Sigh. I will say this as politely as I can. There is an important difference between the common use of the word theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory means an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Basically a scientific theory is the highest level of confidence something can be labeled as in calling it true/real. The ones who often make the mistake between these two uses is theists because they don't understand the topic.
Death come here in front and remind! Lord from Death to LIFE.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
@vhawk1951kl beloved ye once born, introduced unto many shortcomings like lust going after feelings that don't bring true rest but strife and separation from God of the Living. Beloved remembering ye once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now thy shared Feet resting upon the very tip of time. Beloved at least I can do is to washed thy Feet to be given new Feet! Mileage from thy feet is recognize! Love you beloved without shame but with boldness!
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
(Especially the first six paragraphs)
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"*
(Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
You don’t suppose that the Bible could be the story that explains the very stories that were written before it?
Or let’s say because “the Bible stole all of its stories.” What does that mean for what we believe to be true about the ancient world? Is it all made up? Do these sumerian texts contradict the Bible?
@@bryanhawkins9418
Feel free to explain why Enoch the great great grandfather of Noah wrote about "Gilgamesh" and his flood story long before the event according to the bible occurred with Noah ? 🙄🤔
Students shared "i" Am will say, why many with great riches nor wealth coming in front of thee? Students will say, the poor rich young ruler!
Num 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
Num 6:25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
Num 6:26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
Rats and cockroaches were the first to return to South Pacific islands where atomic bombs were tested and those creatures did not change morphology/species. They became polyploid in order to maintain the species. They have known this since the 1950s yet you never hear about it because it clearly goes against the paradigm.
A recent redo of fish classification turns these mechanisms on their head. Dissimilar morphology appears to be closely related genetically throughout new classification based on genetics, Completely rearranging classification based on morphology.
What it shows is that fish are fish!
Fish adapt with similar morphology but different genetic based on environmental conditions.
However they always are fish.
Tortoise have different patterns on each individual species. These patterns are like patterns on chladni plates. Such vibration patterns indicate that each species is iterated based on a specific vibration pattern. They are quite literally spoken into existence as individual species. There is no mechanism in which a vibration pattern is transmitted via genetic modification.
Consider that on a chladni plate the node-anti-node patterns are determined by the frequency, the shape and material of plate and the material vibrated( sand-etc.). However it is dominated by the frequency. Patterns are not continuously changing. You might have to range between a large frequency to get any other pattern.
Plant morphology too exhibits thus vibrational function as differences in species.