Here's some further reading/viewing for those who are interested: 📄 Five atheist miracles: creation.com/five-atheist-miracles 📄 Origin of life: An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis (or biopoiesis) creation.com/origin-of-life 📺 The 4-dimensional genome: ua-cam.com/video/3sah4abOpoI/v-deo.html 📄 The origin of human consciousness: creation.com/origin-of-human-consciousness
@mattbrook-lee7732 don't agree, athiests believe what they do for a myriad of grievances. It's better to study truth to be able to lovingly and intelligently answer those stuck in the deception of athiesm they've chosen.
Im not a theist but I admit that it requires more faith to be an atheist. You need more faith to believe that "non life" produces "life", that "nothing" produces "everything", that "chaos" produces "order", that "randomness" produces "design" and so on....
Hi Funny how everything revolves around God ! Theists who see His existence in the things made Romans 1:1 And Atheists who see all things made and think that proves He doesn’t exist!😂
Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it. All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It didn't matter. He was believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!
Apparently you haven't got the memo. Creation ministries is now saying evolution happens much faster than anyone thinks. The reason for this about turn is simple. Someone realized the story of Noah's ark wouldn't work if two of each animal had to be aboard. There are just far too many different animals. So, taking a creationist precept, the idea of "kinds",, they posit that there didn't have to be two of every different animal, there only had to be two of each different "kind" (I put "kind" in brackets because no one really knows what it means). The problem they ran into with that was the Flood didn't happen that long ago (according to their story, about 4500 years), and therefore all the existing different animals had to evolve from the much smaller number of "kinds" in that short period. So now the story is evolution happens much faster than scientists suggested, allowing for the many different animals appear on earth in a very short period of time. Yes, I know this accepts the idea of evolution, but it does put a limit on it, saying something of one "kind" cannot change to another "kind". Strangely enough, that is true. You cannot evolve so much that you are no longer the descendant of your ancestors. However, the descendants of ancestor species can diverge enough they can no longer reproduce together, creating now species. That is also true of the ancestor species. An ancestor species may be one branch of many produced by their own ancestors.
@@PhilIsaak There is a fundamental misunderstanding about tracing our ancestors. Yes, there is a Y-chromosome Adam, and a mitochondrial Eve. So there was a single individual who was the father of all humans, and a single individual who was the mother of alll lhumans. The error comes in when people think they lived at the same time. They didn't. The other error is in thinking they were the only humans alive at the time. They weren't. However as far as Noah and his family, if indeed they were the ancestors of the human race, then we would all be Jewish, right? That would include Aficans and North/South American pre-Columbian populations. We have pretty clear evidence that those population are far older than the biblical flood, so there must be an error in there somewhere. Either the biblical flood missed them, which means it wasn't worldwide, or the spread of humans after the flood was very rapid. It would also mean the evolution of humans after the flood was very rapid. I'm not sure how you work that out, but I'm willing to consider your theory.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 according to the Bible Abraham was a pagan whom God called from Ur to go to Canaan so technically he was the first Hebrew however that worked but I appreciate your points and intelligent discussion!!
@@throckmortensnivel2850 you are so deceived. The Jews are one tribe of 12 from the Israelite nation of 12 tribes. Noah and His sons predate the Jews and the other 11 tribes. We are all just one race the human race. This man speaks truth with scientific evidence. Your rejection of it just proves the Bible more as it prophecies your attitude in many people in these last days.
Thank God he created you people. Your videos are extremely precious and are now in a playlis that is still being created but have already more than 1000 videos
Religious apologists always poison the well with their ridiculous choice of words for things. They just don't want to believe for fear of shattering their religious beliefs
They'll come up with the phrase, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and tickle their heads with saying it, just so they can laugh at thoughtful people who believe in a creator who loves us.
I suppose I'm in a bit of a bad mood right now, so sorry if my comment comes out as passive-aggressive, but from my experience, a lot of religious people use religion to promote harmful ideas. Honestly, I have no problem with someone believing in a creator, but I dislike religious people who take absolutely no criticism.
@@MBZ901 I sometimes wonder if "church people" are not trying to hedge their bets on there being a "God", but don't actually believe there is one. Religious people can be odd indeed. I wish I wasn't so critical-sounding, but that's honestly how I see it sometimes. "I believe!" doesn't say very much, even Satan and his angels do that much.
Calling observation and scientific theory miracles is the biggest conflation I have ever heard. Is the earth a miracle? Is the sun a miracle? I think this serves theists to discredit those with genuine skepticism.
Then you need to work on your logic skills, because what this guy says is just dormant. There are things we don't know and simply put, that is the answer. 'We don't know', not some made up nonsense that some made up god did it. That is not an answer, and there no evidence to even present it as a hypothesis. Some of the incomplete answers being worked on are not 'miracles' as this clown keeps describing them. He calls them that because he clearly has zero understanding of them, hence why he calls them a 'miracle'. They are not. They are a hypothesis based on what information we have to work with at the current point in time. Present your evidence that a god made the universe in a science journal, then if it stacks up, you shall receive your nobel prize.
For me it was the group-think; or at least that's what pushed me toward my faith. People simply state things without evidence in science, and then turn around and say religion does that, yet they don't try either themselves. So I looked into the evidence for science, and they fell short of the glory of God. After performing the experiment Jesus Christ provided us (it is ongoing, and my variables aren't quite perfect, but I'm getting closer!), I found the hypothesis has resolved to True.
@@therick363 The scientific method is grounded in the philosophical principles of induction and causality, meaning everything that had a beginning (like the universe according to thermodynamic laws) had a cause. Atheists cannot explain what caused the universe without violating the law of non-contradiction. Try listening to what creation science professors have to say; it may well save your soul.
@@garethwest9069I’m not sure how believing in anything, could save your soul. It doesn’t make the slightest amount of sense. It’s just nonsense peddled around to encourage people to join their team.
@@roscius6204 God is Eternal Order, so order coming from Order (God) makes sense. God created the universe from His eternal power, which is not 'nothing' so, no, that's not what God did. Two very different belief systems here. Atheists think the very ANTI-SCIENCE myth of chaos creating order. This is how much you guys grasp at straws to run from God. You even choose to believe a very illogical, irrational myth for your supposed beginning of the universe. Order only ever comes from intelligence, and we observe (science) this on a daily basis, thus knowing God (Intelligence) created the *ORDERLY* laws of nature makes perfect, scientific sense.
Good video. My attention span usually isn't the greatest, but good. I think also the key issue here is that we must also define a miracle. Amos 4:13 gives God credit for creating things such as wind, so I think of miracles as God doing things differently rather than God intervening.
@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM Thank you. I always thought of the analogy that knowing how the painter paints doesn't rid the need for a painter. Therefore, the god-of-the-gaps logic really doesn't work for skeptics who want to rid the world of God because understanding how God made things doesn't rid the need for God at all. It's just how God works, and us understanding a small fraction of His ways doesn't negate the need for Him. I'm sure our current laws would be "miracles" in a different Universe God made if He was to do things differently.
There's more than one moderator on this channel, but I personally haven't deleted anything from this video thus far. (We delete anything that deserves it, naturally. Google also filters out unfit comments.)
@@creationministriesintl "We delete anything that deserves it". Does this mean that only credulous posts are allowed? Just for fun, I looked at one of your other videos and quelle surprise, 19 missing comments!
@@garethwest9069 “if you dare” Are you a child!? The universe does not ‘obey’ Laws. Our Laws are descriptions of how the universe works. As an aside, exactly how does this have anything to do with what I said? Also, are the capitals important? And are there any MATERIAL laws or was the 'IMMATERIAL' redundant?
@@auntietheistjuror You came here to troll, which is childish; nice projection. "As an aside, exactly how does this have anything to do with what I said?" What does anything YOU said have to do with the subject here? See how that works? "The universe does not ‘obey’ Laws. Our Laws are descriptions of how the universe works." Our universe indeed obeys mathematical laws, which are abstract, concepts, if you will, not "descriptions". Numbers are concepts, they are abstract in nature, not physical; they exist in the mind. Written numerals are not numbers; they are representations of numbers. Laws of math are conceptual, not physical. Laws of math were not created but discovered. They didn't evolve, ie '3' didn't become'7'. Planets obey mathematical laws that existed BEFORE people did. They didn't come from an ever changing universe, either. They are conceptual, ie they exist in a mind They are universal, ie they apply everywhere They are invariant, ie they don't change with time They are exceptionless
The naturalist's dilemma is that laws of math exist in a mind but they also existed before people, so they are not the product of a human mind. From who's mind do they come?
Speaking as an atheist I think there is a need to distinguish between terms, as improbability, remarkable, coincidental and miraculous as these are not synonyms. The definition of a miracle as “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency” includes the proposal that the event is attributed to divine agency. If there is no God then there is by definition no divine agency. So for example; The existence of life might be improbable, and remarkable, but I am forced to accept that it happened, because here I am surrounded by life. The exact mechanism or chain events that caused it is not known. On the other hand, in Exodus when the Pharaoh’s Priest casts down his staff and it turns into a snake, that would be a miracle. I leave you to explain the source of this particular miracle. Does that make sense?
If a random string of symbols, by definition, contains no information, and random processes can create order (if it's components are capable of such) but not information, AND life on Earth is highly complex molecules interacting as systems which both co-existed with the megabytes of digitally encoded information, where did the information come from? Semiotic meaning of linearly organized symbols requires an intelligence which plans and then creates that order with a specific end in mind. And, you say this is created by random processes? By definition, it cannot be.
@@glenliesegang233 That is an interesting question, which I will have a think about and get back to you. I would agree that life even in its simplest form seems a big step away from non life structures, and consciousness feels like a big step forward from life without it. While I think about it, will you tell me something, do you believe that bears for example have evolved into different species since the flood, or did all the different bears from 60 Kg Moon Bears (which would freeze in the Artic), to 600Kg Polar Bears (which would starve in the meagre environments where the Moon bears live) (Or the extinct 1600Kg short faced bears) come on board the ark as separate species?
Glen, your question reminded me how rusty I am on genetics, which causes my delay in responding, and you may need to look for a better answer elsewhere. There is a word game in which you start with a word and can change the order of the letters, or swap one letter on each turn. The result must be a word in the dictionary, so for example you cannot translate Door into Dorr, but can translate door into doom or poor or rood. So you can go from slime- smile- smite-spite - spate -spata -tapas- pasta - pasts -pests - jests - Jesus This sequence was generated by a controlling mind, but a simple computer program which generates a mutation of the word slime at random might come up with thousands of variations that are meaningless such as slimt or zlime, but also come up with smile. It will discard all those quasi-words that are meaningless and just keep those like smile and limes that do make sense. Cell division is subject to errors in the genetic code. If there was a controlling mind, then the errors could be discarded or facilitated. The question is does this also happen without a controlling mind? Does that make sense so far?
@@simonthorneycroft1339Trying theorize life and it's origins is a big problem that raise more questions as scientists dig deeper. No one can ultimately have all the answers, but one thing is certain a designer will be outside our reality to create this material world. You see the designer only in his design
@@kofiackah283 I apologise, I am not quite following what you are trying to say? Are you saying that there is a designer, who operates outside our world / reality, and so we will never be able to grasp him or his processes, and that the design is evidence of the designer? Apologies for asking.
So I like the chair explanation but what if you took it a step further and we said the rose created itself we could say that you know the chair we could recreate the chair ourselves but what about the rose you invited somebody to to make you a rose or to recreate the rows they could not do it from nothing I guess that's true with the chair also because the material the wood for say that it took to make the chair had to come from somewhere and that a human being out of nothing could not create the would it took to make the chair or create the rose or the dirt that the rose grew in or the tree grew in iron and the minerals and the things in the soil that even in the water it took all these things are so far outside of the realm of the human possibility that it had to come from a supernatural creator
Great video I try to tell people online everyday will be atheist agnostics. Whoever even some Christians who start to doubt I try to remind them of these facts these truths a lot of people who are Christians are evolutionists that try to remind them of these things about people and end times which we are in don't want to believe it. They want to know it. They want to understand it. It's too late for them most likely. But who knows only God does. Again, good job, God bless you.
I believe he meant that "up to 20% of the genes in each species are unique". When discussing in quick pace mistakes can happen. He was obviously talking of the Orphan genes. Orphan genes are genes that lack a detectable homologue outside of a given species or lineage. Most genes have known homologues. Two genes are homologous when they share an evolutionary history, and the study of groups of homologous genes allows for an understanding of their evolutionary history and divergence. ... Studying the origins of a gene becomes more difficult when there is no evident homologue. The discovery that about 10% or more of the genes of the average microbial species is constituted by orphan genes raises questions about the evolutionary origins of different species as well as how to study and uncover the evolutionary origins of orphan genes.
@@jelly7310 Pick any one you like and look it up on Wikipedia. You'll get a short summary of current scientific understanding and the evidence that led to those conclusions.
@@alantasman8273 Not sure where you get the idea that I consider Wikipedia to be "a source of truth and knowledge". It's a useful source if you want to get some basic background information about a scientific topic. I mentioned it because Dr. Batten is using his background in agricultural research as authority to persuade gullible Christians that arguing from ignorance is a viable method of establishing the truth.
Actually Evolution can only happen when inanimate matter achieves the status of life...which has never been observed to happen. Life begets life but atheists cannot explain the existence of life. Yet they purport to know how life has evolved.
@ulftnightwolf you're pushing the conflict thesis, which has been utterly debunked by Historians of Science. To better understand this issue i recommend reading the Oxford press release:"Of Popes and Unicorns"
Don references a bygone era of relative ignorance ("back in Darwin's days"), where you'd look down a microscope and "see a blob", a time when we didn't have the knowledge or tools to properly understand the complexity of life and the universe. He then acknowledges that we now understand a great deal more, now that our instruments of inquiry have advanced. Yet he dismisses non-Creationist assertions/theories (such as dark matter) as being "miracles" when in fact they are simply the next "blob" under the microscope. He acknowledges that scientific progress has clarified humanity's understanding of the world and then he mocks or dismisses ongoing scientific work that is seeking to clarify humanity's understanding of the world... Is he unaware that he is contradicting himself, or is he being willfully hypocritical? The scientific method is a continuous cycle of research, hypothesis, testing, analysis, and discussion, and being a biologist one would expect that he understands and respects this, and yet he seems to relish in the act of misrepresenting it (at least when it applies to anything that contradicts his Christian beliefs). If you do not know the answer to a complex question and do not then default to a supernatural creator as the answer, that does not mean you have to believe in a miracle, it means that you are aware of the current limits of human knowledge and that perhaps you trust in the scientific process to eventually illuminate these dark corners of ignorance (as it has done for hundreds of years). Don is simply pointing at anything humanity (or simply Don himself) does not yet understand fully and saying "God did that." People used to point at the arc of the sun and the phases of the moon and say "(a) god did that" and yet now we understand these things as natural, physical processes. A calm and kindly demeanor paired with the odd reference to Lawrence Krauss and other scientists does not mean the man is arguing in good faith, either. His sneering misrepresentations of non-creationist belief and certain scientific theories, as well as his selective application of his own logic, should signal to any viewer that this "discussion" is far from even-handed. His characterization of atheistic thought in section 5 is contemptible (same goes for the host). For someone whose religion preaches humility, he sure seems comfortable on his holier-than-thou high horse. Don claims that Darwin's beliefs weren't driven by science, but by his desire to not believe in god. It seems Don's words and beliefs are not driven by much beside his desire to look down upon those who don't believe in his god, those who "haven't really thought it through".
The point is that in the “bygone era” all evidence points to a Creator just as all efforts and science up to today still points to a Creator, to God. In the future you’ll surely discover even more complexity in all fields of science that also point to God just as it is designed. The truth is nothing will never be able to create everything. Creation requires a creator that is beyond the material realm. Before space, time, and matter has to be a being that is space less, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, personal, and intelligent. That’s what we call God. All science and theology prove the universe had a beginning or today would never have gotten here and usable energy wouldn’t exist. The first miracle in the Bible is the very first verse. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If the first miracle has proof all around us then every miracle is at least possible. Atheists will only ever be able to fall back on their only excuse,”We just don’t know yet. Maybe one day.” When all evidence points to God that will always be the answer of those who refuse to accept God in their life. Atheists will never know where they came from, what their purpose is, and where they’re going. That’s the definition of lost. Luke 19:10 Jesus came to seek and to save the lost.
@@jettruth How can all evidence in all eras point to a god if you aren't presupposing the existence of a god? If new evidence comes to light or our understanding of existing evidence changes, is the answer "god" even before we have properly investigated it? This is what it sounds like you are saying. And this is a rather grand claim to make, that ALL evidence points to god (which is incorrect). Are you aware of ALL evidence? Do you understand it? You are free to make that claim, but that is a claim of faith, not of reason or science or evidence. My issues with Don's words were that he picks and chooses when he invokes science and when he invokes faith and he misrepresents the former whenever it is convenient to the latter. I already dealt with your claim regarding the "atheist excuse", as you put it. From a secular perspective, we did not yet know why the sun arced across the sky, but now we do---and it isn't because a god moved it with his hand or carried it across the sky with a chariot. Now, there are still things we do not know, but science is reliably making them known. Please do not speak for non-believers when it comes to issues of meaning or purpose. I am not lost.
@@deancroxon4217 There is no scientific proof that points to some nothing producing everything, and scientific consensus is a cultish term to mean people who are bound together by a particular belief, not by actual scientific evidence or proof of what they claim
1) Origin of the universe 2) Origin of the stars 3) Origin of life 4) Origin of the diversity of life 5) Origin of meaning, morality and intellect Not one of these originates from the suspension of the natural phenomena(of which all the above-named is derived) exclusively in your favour.
I've asked this question many times with no real answer.......How do we know what a star is made of or what the sun is made of? Who decided what they are made of and how did they come to that conclusion? Another one is , how do we know what is at the center of the earth or below 8 miles since thats the deepest hole on the planet?
lol there are many ways to know what sun is made of , read more books , "how do we know what is at the center of the earth or below 8 miles since that's the deepest hole on the planet?" by studying the seismic waves, you not knowing don't don't mean we don't know it
Study spectroscopy and the use of equipment which senses the transmission through the Earth the motions earthquakes produce, and how the measurements around the globe can be used to generate a picture of what is inside in the same way a CT scan does.
Good questions. If you throw different materials onto a fire you will see that they emit different colours as they burn. We can tell what materials are in stars by the different colours of light being emitted
Waves such as sound travel differently through different materials eg solids, liquids, gases. When earthquakes happen at the surface seismic waves travel through the earth to the core and are reflected and refracted back to the surface in different ways. By measuring these we can work out what they passed through on the way. The other big clue is the shape and strength of the earth's magnetic field
Never allow an atheist to use a common term without defining it. When they say, faith, make them define it, and know what the Bible means by faith. When they say miracle make them define it, and make sure you understand the biblical understanding of miracle. When they say magic, make them to find it and make sure you understand the biblical definition of magic. You will find that you were using the same words, but with vastly different meanings.
- Psalms 14:1 “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” - Romans 1:18-20 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
2:46 An atheist, Dr MayLing Ng who claims to have a degree in quantum physics made this counter argument to my quoting William Lane Craig' kalam cosmological argument.
@@alantasman8273 where the rest i E=MC^2 , C is a constant , the equation is proven right by experiments , kinetic energy is EK= 1/2 mv2 also proven right
@Jungle Jargon 👍 Great post. That is being very nice.. 😉 They believe any fraud that is made-up to support their skepticism of there being a creator - GOD, Even Jesus Christ said that he and the Father are one.
@@therick363 More like theDodo - What do I have to gain by telling lies? You obviously do not keep up with current archeology or science. You're not a credible person, so you are the one who spreads the lies that you haven't done the tests on or about. .
@@beestoe993 Amoebas are Eukaryotes. The phylogenetic tree shows that Eukaryotes are closer to Archaea than to Bacteria. The mitochondria came from Proteobacteria
3 things the True Living God cannot do. He cannot lie. He cannot deny His own reality and character. He cannot be unjust, which includes ignoring sin. Fortunately for us, He became the sacrifice for our sins, so that all who turn and follow Him have forgiveness, relationship with Him, and eternal life. We've done our basic research, and it's true. Will you be humble enough to research it objectively?
These are not merely unknowns, waiting for explanation. Rather, these events require that the known scientific laws of chemistry, physics, etc. actually be _violated_ to make the evolutionary narrative work (and ad hoc explanations, such as dark energy, are also invented for the same reason). Origin of life (to pick one) is a good example. The laws of chemistry are firmly against a naturalistic origin of life. Details here: creation.com/origin-of-life
@@creationministriesintl they really don't. tell me what laws of science are getting broken for evolution to happen, for the earth to be forms and the universe expanding.
@@creationministriesintl Incorrect. These are unknowns. I've never heard any scientist claim that they have irrefutable proof of how the universe came to exist in its current form. The beauty of science is that when an existing theory is found to be fallible, it is abandoned, the new theory is 'adopted', and then scientists set about trying to find flaws in the current scientific model. Evolution is a process we can observe in animal and plant species to this day. Evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As for the origin of the universe, consciousness, etc.? Nobody knows. They are unknowns.
Tell us what you believe then , we’d love to hear how everything came into existence . You’d be doing everyone on the planet a favour , and end all the silly conjecturing by all the greatest minds in the world !
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh Albert Einstein thought that there must have been an intelligent mind that created the universe . Nothing comes from nothing , and you don’t have to be Einstein to realise that . It’s just a matter of humbling yourself and surrendering your position as God to the creator who actually deserves the glory .
Also, I mean no disrespect by this comment. I work in a scientific field and I go out to eat lunch with my atheist friends everyday and love my brothers. I think it comes down to this - if you believe that a loving God could put His children into a situation where we have to have faith in Him and that's one of the most important reasons for our being here is to have the opportunity to build a relationship with Him in a circumstance where it's difficult to even proof that He exists then you lean toward believing in religion and if you just can't believe that because it seems too naive or for any other reason then you tend to lean towards atheism.
I mean no disrespect and I don't even know if I'm quoting the right person here but here's a quote I'd like to share: " A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." -Francis Bacon God bless you and your atheist friends I hope you can witness that there's a creator through the work of His creation.
Hi I must object to the use of the term ‘Miracles’ WHICH EXIST ONLY IN THE GOD GIVEN CREATION! BIG BANG THEORISTS MUST ONLY BE ALLOWED THE TERM ‘MAGIC’ FOR THEIR WILD AND WOOLY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF ANYTHING!
The origin of the universe isn’t a miracle Neither is origin of stars Neither is origin of life that one is for every athiest individually and when athiest say miracle they mean MAGIC Origin of diversity of life just not a miracle not even close you could maybe get away with the others but not this Morality and intelligence and meaning also not a miracle just none of these things are miracles
It's funny when you call out how religious so many of these athiests beliefs in these impossible explanations for creation without God, they will just say, "Well I don't believe that.." and eventually they'll just claim to be a nihilist and act like you have to prove them wrong. Sorry, nihilism is a you problem. It's obvious there was a Creator.
What limited mindset do you have to have to think that because you cant physically prove an Entity exists it means it doesn't? Why would the Creator stoop to such a miniscule thing as to do a miracle to prove to a disbeliever that he exists When Creation is all the proof you need? No one knows who built the pyramids but we all know it didnt build itself right?
No evidence for Kali and Baal. Lots of evidence that they are the constructs of human minds. Tons of evidence for the Bible, it's historical record, and it's conclusions
@@timparks1098 Much the Old Testament stories like the Flood and the story of Moses is clearly cribbed from older material. There's no evidence for supernatural events that are not explainable by more conventional means such as the "division:" of the Red Sea was obviously inspired by a tsunami caused by the destruction of Thera.
As much as they deny it, evolutionist's both have faith and a "god of the gaps". They need miracles when their magical science runs out of air...all the time. Blind luck created nothing.
@@MBZ901 Can one believe in a painting, a building or a simple meal without knowing there was a painter, a builder or a cook? The aforementioned are WAY more simple than the cosmos, life, a sense of shared morality, gravity etc. I may not have ever met the painter, builder or the cook but I see their work and I know. To believe that nothing created everything, and that non-life started life, to me, these great miracles would require the upmost faith.
@@transworldbusinessadvisorsnc I understand the analogy, but it's applying known logic to the unknown. I don't believe that nothing created everything, nor do I believe that an intelligent being created everything. The truth is-I don't know. Even if life was created, there's no way to know precisely who or what created it. Unless science can definitively prove how the universe was created, which I doubt it will, I suspect I'll remain agnostic.
According to evolution, whatever is evolving will start from very basic complexity which over time gets more and more complex. Therefore when a human was slowly evolving, its eyes ears and nose must have evolved before the super complex brain. How can this be true because the eyes, ears and nose can only function by nerves sending information to the brain. They all had to be there at the same time, meaning creation.
first of all… a single human does not evolve. It is a change in genes from generation to generation that results in large changes over large amounts of time. Second, it does not take a complex brain to interpret sound, smell, or sight. Basic organisms have light sensing cells that react to stimuli. eyes can come before a brain. Just because you can’t immediately rationalize the truth doesn’t mean that it doesnt exist
This is not correct. It is possible to sense and react to your environment without a brain. Watch how sunflowers track the sun throughout the day. There are many very simple animals with rudimentary light sensors and no brain as such. The brain would have come much later
You are talking about irreducible complexity. There is a limit to how far the complex of a life form...the cell, can be regressed back before it become totally worthless and has no long term viability.
Statements that begin with "it has been shown " should include a source. If they don't give ine then everything in the rest of the sentence can be ignored
@555atU OK I will rephrase. Statements that are not common knowledge and cannot easily be demonstrated should include a source. This guy when talking about humans and chimps evolving from the same creature says (12:10) "it has been shown that it can't happen ". That would clearly be disputed by the vast majority of scientists so it really needs a source. Where was it shown? When? By who? If you're happy just taking his word for that, fill your boots
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Richard Dawkins does the same thing all the time. I don't question what he thinks is true. It has been shown that evolution can't happen, with Darwin's theory, by many scientists going back to the 1960's. The whole premise of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there's irreducible complexity, and a host of "chicken and egg" problems starting with the first cell. Evolution presupposes life already existing but has zero account of any mechanism that started it and where the information came from. What do you have that says it's true?
Natural selection should be accepted as an explanation for adaptation, and accepted and taught as such. It is so utterly and irrefutable simple. This business of, "Natural selection is wrong," is sad, because Darwin's observation and explanation of the finches and Iguanas on the Galapagos are clearly fact. But "What it is that evolves," is so far from simple that it demands an examination of the "how." Metamorphosis requires whole new sets of proteins, stretches of RNA and DNA which must be activated and silenced in precise order. "Orphan genes" have no homology with any others. They appear de novo. The noncoding DNA sequences are part of and mainly comprise a vast operating system of RNA and highly specific proteins which interact with their environment to regulate this on-off emergent well choreographed dance of genes as above. A Superintelligence best explains both abiogenesis and de novo gene appearance episodically. If Aliens, they sure possess a level of insight and creativity far beyond even any intelligence we can imagine.
The word miracle is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Anyhow I would have a lot more respect if these two actually proved the existence of God. Which they cannot. Pray on the video and get God to levitate something or manifest. They have no scientific proof for God. Calling something we cannot explain a miracle does not prove God. What evidence do you have for God?
In the video (or article: creation.com/five-atheist-miracles) Dr Batten discusses several things which naturalists/atheists must believe in but which actually _contradict_ the known laws of physics/chemistry/genetics. If that doesn't make you question the paradigm, what evidence _would_ convince you that something outside of the nature (i.e. something SUPER-natural) had to have been involved? BTW, "proof" is big word which good scientists don't use a whole heap. "Proof for God"? We're happy to go with "Evidence for God"-and there is lots of it. But the things mentioned in this video/article are a suitable starting point. (Also see creation.com/cab-1)
Its easy to prove the existence of God such as the complete DNA is every Kind of organism on earth which contains the code for every tiny part in perfection with zero flaws of design. Absolutely no design mistakes.
The traditional proofs of God are what has been revealed. General Revelation are proofs available to all, even Andrew MacDonald 968. Nature is part of that, including the evidence within it for design proving existence of a Designer, which the video addressed. "Yea, but that's not proof, just a filler explanation until a materialistic explanation can be figured out." That silly counter argument could be used for any truth, reality, or proof. "1+1 only seems to =2, there's no proof, and those superstitious masses will continue to believe it until the inevitable proof of a different conclusion comes along." The other part of General Revelation is conscience, the instinctive ability within us all to know that there is an objective morality. Also touched on in the video. Dunno bout AM968, but every other atheist I know concedes that it has been wrong for commie or fascist govts of the past century to slaughter portions of their populations regardless if they could claim some greater good to the rest of the population. It is a proof of God. The Bible says God has put eternity in our hearts. Ah, that gets into the Special Revelation, in which God has reached out to us with proof of His existence, love, etc in ways that are available to some and at some times, such as the Bible, miracles that point to supernatural intervention, revealing Himself to people individually through their hearts and thoughts, etc. Keep seeking, AM698, and you will find, keep knocking and the door will be opened, keep asking because there are answers.
Circular reasoning by Atheists has them chasing their evolving tail. Edit: my spelling has been corrected. Please forgive me! The absolute shame that I felt was almost overwhelming! 😂😂😂😂
@Acts20.24 - The theory of evolution would never survive if it only had private money... look at all of the taxpayer money that they waste on evolution begging for federal grant money through the university, which, then gets accolades for fraudulent studies, and fake peer results, and extra taxpayer money; especially if the study is at a "State University". All paid by the taxpayers to perpetuate the myth of evolution - from banana to man mythology.
if you define miracle as an extremely unlikely event. Than sure. If you define miracle as an event that breaks the laws of physics. Than no. Unlikely events happen all the time. Every time you shuffle a deck of cards you get a result that is 1 in ~80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Using definition 1: Miracle 1: Nope, it is currently unknown how the universe came about. Anyone that says it was unlikely is already grasping at things we do not know. Miracle 2: Origin of stars is well known. Its gravity. There are a lot of stars. Not sure how this could be considered an unlikely event in any way. Miracle 3: See miracle 1 Miracle 4: Evolution is a well understood and proven process that accounts for all diversity of life. Also not sure how this is and unlikely event. Miracle 5: Meaning and morality are emergent properties from brains/minds/consciousnesses. Everyone single person has them, so again not sure how this is an unlikely event. 0:22 but i do not believe intellect came from "accidents", no1 does, only apologists say this. 0:24 i trust my thoughts because they have been correct about predicting reality quite often. 1:01 29 years! that must have been so many interactions with atheists. So i can expect not a single strawman argument than. Great! 2:41 dang that did not last long. Only apologists say that atheists think the universe came from nothing. all these 29 years speaking and still got that one wrong. 3:06 so even Krauss does not believe the universe came from (a philosophical) nothing. Thanks for debunking yourself. 3:39 Discover magazine as a source... Theory (in the colloquial sense) does not mean atheists believe this. Alan Guth first proposed this idea in 1980 and there was very little support for his idea's at that time, even less now. 4:39 They don't, because it makes no sense. The stupidity is in thinking atheists are so irrational they actually would believe something like this instead of concluding that this is so stupid, and maybe check if they actually believe this. 5:00 we are here. That makes the question of how we get there mute. Its still interesting to know, but not necessary. 5:53 there are no "gasses" during early inflation as there wasn't even matter. 6:18 an explosion is not everything uniformly moving outwards. Its very chaotic, everything bumping into eachother. Gravity does the rest. 6:37 The heavier elements come from the stars core becoming more and more dense thus the gravity increases and more pressure is exerted. Some of this energy (neutrons)bump into the elements which such energy they fuse into heavier elements (everything above iron). This makes it even more dense. When the pressure gets too big and the energy heats it up enough, the core explodes. These explosions also have enough energy to do this same process and create even more heavy elements. 7:03 No, some stars form from other stars but not all do. 7:18 Dark matter is not required for any of this. Im gonna stop here. This is the very definition of strawman. It would be the same as me spending 29 years doing this and after all that still saying Christians believe god is an old man sitting on a cloud...
The point with these 'miracles' is not that they are merely very _unlikely_ events, but rather that they contradict the very laws of physics/chemistry which science has done such a good job of identifying. Even many highly qualified secular scientists acknowledge the issues in each of the areas the video covered. To pick just one as an example, here's what Neil deGrasse Tyson once said about star formation: “Not all gas clouds in the Milky Way can form stars at all times. More often than not, the cloud is confused about what to do next. Actually, astrophysicists are the confused ones here. We know the cloud wants to collapse under its own weight to make one or more stars. But rotation as well as turbulent motion within the cloud work against that fate. So, too, does the ordinary gas pressure you learned about in high-school chemistry class. Galactic magnetic fields also fight collapse: they penetrate the cloud and latch onto any free-roaming charged particles contained therein, restricting the ways in which the cloud will respond to its self-gravity. *The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, front line research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form.* ” [our emphasis] - _Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries_ , p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007 The origin of life is another huge area of trouble for naturalistic thinking. To see some of the issues laid out, see creation.com/origin-of-life Thanks for stopping by.
"Im gonna stop here. This is the very definition of strawman. It would be the same as me spending 29 years doing this and after all that still saying Christians believe god is an old man sitting on a cloud..." Your un-scientific rant ends ... with a strawman. smh Please tell me, why does a material universe obey IMMATERIAL laws?
You're NEVER gonna learn anything living inside an echo chamber, so here we go. Debunking the 'emergent properties' claim ... This 'quantum escape' - an appeal to the fuzzy notion of ‘quantum indeterminacy’ claims that matter is not really predictable, since we have found strange anomalies in the quantum realm that seem to be inexplicable in terms of rigid cause and effect. This appeal does not work for three reasons: First, there are different competing explanations of the results we see in quantum experiments, and it is far from clear which one is truly the correct one, if any. There are both indeterminate and determinate interpretations. Second, the strange, unpredictable results we see are only observed at the quantum level. This unpredictability does not extend into the macroscopic world of trees, baseballs, mountains and human bodies. In the macroscopic world, experiments on matter are predictable and repeatable; that is exactly why science works in the first place. Atheists want to ignore the fact that brains, complicated or not, are macroscopic objects, not quantum particles. Whatever is going on in the quantum realm does not change the fact that matter is known to behave predictably according to the laws of physics. Third, indeterminacy is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for freedom. For an agent to make a free choice, he must be the originator of the choice and in control of it. But if quantum events are truly random, this leaves no room for agency. An emergent property, by its very nature, is an outworking of the same universal laws of physics that govern everything else in the material world. For example, some things are soft, and some things are hard. Softness and hardness are not properties of the constituent molecules of an object, but rather these properties ‘emerge’ as a function of the physical arrangement of those molecules. There is nothing magical about this; it happens predictably. Salt is a particular chemical combination of the elements sodium and chlorine. The emergent property of ‘saltiness’ is not possessed by either of those elements; both sodium and chlorine are highly dangerous, toxic substances on their own. Yet, with the particular chemical combination of sodium chloride, we get the property of saltiness. Once again, this property is an outworking of set laws of physics and chemistry. There is nothing unpredictable or ‘magical’ happening there. Therefore, emergent properties are, just like any other type of physical property of matter, an outworking of laws. Your secular priests merely deceive you when using their argument that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ that frees us from the otherwise established law of cause and effect. It is a bluff because it attempts to use the idea of physical properties to negate the very laws of physics that make these properties possible. It is an inherent contradiction. Fundamentally, the ‘emergent property’ argument fails because it tries to turn physics, and indeed logic, against itself. There is simply no escape: without a supernatural soul, humans are tied down by the laws of physics. We are reduced to automatons, and the implications of this are far reaching. [taken from a CMI article. I'm a subscriber, not staff]
@@garethwest9069 Who are you responding too? Because your post does not seem to be aimed at what i said. You seem to accept emergent properties as part of a physical world. Great, so do i. You imply i assign something "magical" to emergent properties. But i never said anything of the sort. I have never heard of the emergent property argument (nor can i find anything on it other than from CMI claiming people make this argument). Nor did i mention libertarian free will or that i hold that position (i do not). So grats to debunking an argument i didn't make and wouldn't make. You seem to make the exact same mistake as in the video. You ascribe positions to me i do not hold. You debunk it and than say you have debunked me. There is a name for something like that..stra... something... As for Immaterial laws. Laws are not immaterial things (like a soul would be). They are the the interactions of the material. Or put in a simpler way, They are the limits of the possible interactions of the material. Look at it from inside and than outwards where the material stops at the laws of nature. Rather than the laws of nature somehow being a thing that is imposing rules on the material.
@@aidanya1336 All you did was make a circular argument re 'emergent properties'. The response I offered is part of a scholarly article but your mind is tightly closed to the possibility of biblical creation, hence all your flippant responses and nonsensical claims. Your response to my question reads like gobbledygook, tbh; it makes no sense whatsoever. Anyhow, here goes ... Numbers are concepts, they are abstract in nature, not physical; they exist in the mind. Written numerals are not numbers; they are representations of numbers. Laws of math are conceptual, not physical. Laws of math were not created but discovered. They didn't evolve, ie '3' didn't become'7'. Planets obey mathematical laws that existed BEFORE people did. They didn't come from an ever changing universe, either. They are conceptual, ie they exist in a mind They are universal, ie they apply everywhere They are invariant, ie they don't change with time They are exceptionless
The naturalist's dilemma is that laws of math exist in a mind but they also existed before people, so they are not the product of a human mind. From who's mind do they come?
1 minute and 40 seconds. A commentary says. atheist believe in magicians. Christians believe in something called Faith. You should look up definitions before you speak.😂. Adam and eve come from a Jewish golem spell.😅😅😅 So who Believe in magic?
"So who Believe in magic?" - Atheists. The so-called "evolution" is full of magic. I think that's the point Richard Dawkins is trying to hide. Science requires demonstrable and repeatable proof, but Richard Dawkins does not care. Science by definition: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained." This tells indisputably that the evolution theory has never been proved using a scientific method. When has the evolution theory been successfully tested in laboratories? Answer: Never! No new body plan has ever emerged! Instead of science, atheists have written their own superstitious book based on magic. It goes somehow like this: "In the beginning nothing exploded / expanded and created all of the matter in the known Universe." No "magic" needed - or huge magic needed? Science has no observation of a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA) which is the cornerstone of evolution theory. In reality it is just an atheistic assumption. But here the Atheistic Magic comes in handy. According to evolutionists, UCA is supposed to have been a ”simple” cell. Assuming there was a UCA, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against such evolution. According to the evolution theory, evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction, no variation, nothing for nature to select - no evolution. But ... with the Atheistic Magic everything is possible! The self-replicating DNA molecules, encoded with billions of base pairs with specified / irreducibly complex genetic information were able to mindlessly create themselves out of dirt, air, heat and water? No one in his/her senses could believe it ... But no worry! Atheist Magic worked again! Or the fact that Man's or his ”Fish Ancestor’s” all vital interdependent organs and their support systems had to be working together in tandem or we died and went extinct. Which was the order for their "evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all "evolve" together? No ordinary magic would work, but the Atheistic Magic is of better quality ... How about the chicken or egg? Which came first? Oh, the egg?? OK, just how did all of that specified DNA for that "proto chicken” get inside the egg? Who or what put it there? No problem - Atheistic Magic works here big time! How about “50 million years” old dinosaur red blood cells, soft tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last without biodegrading completely while it is known to rot in less than 10,000 years? No problem! Atheistic Magic doesn’t fail, so the fossils are 50 million years old, no matter what the evidence says. During the course of "500 Million Years", while living in the same environment at the same time, some Jellyfish were evolving into humans, other Jellyfish were evolving into some other direction and some nowhere. How come? Don’t ask stupidities! Atheistic Magic solves this kind of illogicality with a pass of the magic wand. We could go almost endlessly on about these atheistic superstitions 😃
There not miracles and love how she picks things Richard said when he was taking the piss bring up things he was serious about because he would destroy them every time
Sooo . . . Even if I've "forgotten" and there is an God - Why is it definitively your God? Because your book says so? Why is it not Thor or Allah or Shiva or a big invisible purple triangle named Hugh? etc . . . Let me guess - You have a book and a lot of salesman.
If your god is so desperate for people to believe in her and to worship her, which sounds rather needy by the way, she would reveal herself in an unambiguous way. She would not need to rely on some dusty book that has no provenance to convince us of her existence and might. All atheists are waiting for your god or someone else’s god to make this revelation in the here and now. But even believers know this will never happen, because all the revelations that have occurred until now, have occurred in the fevered brains of a handful of people in the distant past. If someone today made the same apocalyptic predictions today that Jesus made most sensible people would dismiss him as a rambling ratbag.
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." - Romans 1:18-23 There is no excuse for denying the existence of God. Furthermore, in the Bible God is never mentioned as being a she or her. Rather, words like: him, his, he, Father, King, LORD, are used when talking about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, you should be able to spot this in the passage above.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i The bible is self-referential. Quoting passages from the bible is not an indication of veracity. You did not address my point. Your god, should she be so inclined to, would reveal her existence to one and all, rather than cloak herself in smoke and mirrors if she wanted our fealty.
As to gender, an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being would be sexless. Referring to him is just a convention. I wouldn’t get tied up in knots over that.
@@keibro13 Did you see the verse, "20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20 Sufficient evidence for the existence of God has already been provided. There is and will be no excuse for denying God's existence. Even if God were to appear to you, you would brush it away with the belief that your were merely hallucinating. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, indeed, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1 No, until you first believe that there is a God and seek him and ask Him to reveal Himself to you, you will continue to turn your face away from any evidence that is given to you.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Those verses were written by people who had no explanation for the world around them. In fact, their entire world view was comparatively small to today. The centre of their world, the middle and near east was a battleground. It was common for people, not only Jews, to attribute the events of their world to the supernatural. Every early civilisation had its heroes and gods. Many passages in the bible are as much political diatribes expressing the view that their god would triumph over others as they are scriptures. They may as well have been talking about football teams. But time marches on and our knowledge of the world and our place in it has grown exponentially. The tribes of the bible were a superstitious and comparatively ignorant people who expressed their knowledge in myths and stories. There is no reason for us to cling to these stories as if they were fact. They are myths and legends. Nobody recorded who said what. That includes Jesus. He wasn’t surrounded by literate people who recorded his words. His words are inventions, hearsay.
The proof of God is the existence of h"is Creation. \The coded information for every major complex molecule in every form of llfe had to exist at the first instant of its life.
@@MTBScotland It is easy to show the fraud and/or deception in every sentence used by evolutionists to prm9ote their atheistic religious belief. I have never been able to find even one honest scientific statement used to promote the story of 'evolution'. Never has any theory been invented to explain how "evolution" could be possible.
@@MTBScotland - Nobody has ever found any evidence that shows how evolution could be possible and their is zero evidence showing that evolution has occurred. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Everyone agrees that life looks like it was designed. Evolution explains how that came about. Simply saying it looks designed is not an argument. We all agree
When you have hydrogen gas in space the hydrogen atoms had to be close enough together for the gravity to bring them together to form a star. According to scientists, this was achieved before the expanding universe had expanded fully. Now this was first generation stars. However the second generation stars required gravity waves from super novae. How can we look at all those second generation stars and cannot find any super nova remnants near by?
The first stars are short-lived supermassive stars, a hundred or so times the mass of our Sun, known as Population III (or “metal-free”) stars. Eventually Population II and then Population I stars also begin to form from the material from previous rounds of star-making. Larger stars burn out quickly and explode in massive supernova events, their ashes going to form subsequent generations of stars. Large volumes of matter collapse to form galaxies and gravitational attraction pulls galaxies towards each other to form groups, clusters and superclusters. Our Sun is a late-generation star, incorporating the debris from many generations of earlier stars, and it and the Solar System around it form roughly 4.5 to 5 billion years ago (8.5 to 9 billion years after the Big Bang).
Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it! All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It didn't matter. He is believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!
Please tell us how you would go about reproducing the Universe and all within it....including life. You apparently are smarter than those that have spent their entire life pondering such questions. Thank you in advance for giving us the answers......
@@waynerenee3809 utter nonsense. I have no beef with God. I just want to try to explain what I see around me. There is no contradiction whatsoever with a belief in God. That is just a trope to keep people in the cult
@@mattbrook-lee7732There is no explanation of the information needed. It requires a mind. No ambiguity about it. It’s actually pointless to argue it, and foolish. Nature cannot produce information let alone itself.
@@waynerenee3809 nature produces information and signalling systems without a mind all of the time. Flowers signal to pollinators. Light sensing cells allow a sunflower to track the sun. Termites, ants, and bees build amazing structures. These all require information and signalling systems. Nature does just fine without intelligent minds. The evidence is everywhere
I wish I were an atheist because if I can get myself to believe that a universe can create itself then I could also believe that I'm the god of my own universe and therefore I have no accountability to anyone other than myself. Life would be a lot easier that way!
These are not miracles but scientific theories based on the available evidence . If new evidence comes up and verified then science will change its mind. The theory of a being that's always been there with no beginning us equally mind boggling and something that neither religion or science will ever know for definite . I don't know what scientific qualifications this speakers got.
@@Mario_Sky_521 yes if there is new verifiable evidence that the theory is wrong. That's what l like about science that is willing to change its mind if new evidence comes along. You can't say the same about religious books just purely that there is no way of verifying stories like a serpent talking to eve in the garden of Eden or lots wife being turned to a pillar of salt.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Yes thats the beauty of science. If new evidence comes along and verified science will change its mind. The theories like of what started the universe or whether it even had a beginning would just be a theory . Theories are different from facts in my opinion as there is not yet enough evidence to prove but there are scientific facts out there.
@@Mario_Sky_521 I disagree otherwise police doing investigations would never find the criminal. I don't mean yourself but some religious people I have talked to can get quite nasty if you question their religion. I am willing to change my mind if anyone can provide evidence about a serpent talking to eve for example but that's the problem with religion . It makes statements about the creation of earth with no evidence to back it up apart from stories in a compiled book.trying to a obtain evidence through scientific investigation and bits of evidence is better than what some religions do and make assumptions about the creation with no evidence to confirm.
@@rickdelatour5355 do you know what comment is on youtube? A free speech bro. Anyways you might find i know more of chemistry and astronomy than you do.
@@PacisMwiza you are free to comment about things you apparently don’t know much about. Just as I am free to point out fallacies. If you know so much please explain how dark matter created the universe? It is important to how the universe looks today, but we don’t yet know how the universe originated. I’m atheist, I don’t worship dark matter. So that is wrong too. Is English your second language?
Many theists believe in the big bang and many have said it proves to them that God created because it sounds like what Genesis describes. I have not heard anyone claim that the universe originated from dark matter. As far as I can tell physicists freely admit they can't provide a natural explanation how the universe started. Some physicists are theists and think God started the universe. I think what puzzles people about your post is your use of laughing faces as if you said something deliriously funny. But really it sounds like you might be parroting some wild conspiracy strawman theory of what some theists think atheists might believe.
@@creationministriesintl things that happen naturally, are not miracles. so you already know it's impossible for your god to create a universe, where those things occur naturally. i thought that was obvious.
To believe that Nothing blew up, became alive, as living breathing beings, and now as thinking creatures, questions how Nothing Blew up, became alive as living beings with Minds capable to ponder our own existence, is mind numbing laughable. Atheist are silly people.
Here's some further reading/viewing for those who are interested:
📄 Five atheist miracles: creation.com/five-atheist-miracles
📄 Origin of life: An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis (or biopoiesis) creation.com/origin-of-life
📺 The 4-dimensional genome: ua-cam.com/video/3sah4abOpoI/v-deo.html
📄 The origin of human consciousness: creation.com/origin-of-human-consciousness
Save your money. Find out what atheists actually think by talking to them.
@mattbrook-lee7732 don't agree, athiests believe what they do for a myriad of grievances. It's better to study truth to be able to lovingly and intelligently answer those stuck in the deception of athiesm they've chosen.
Im not a theist but I admit that it requires more faith to be an atheist. You need more faith to believe that "non life" produces "life", that "nothing" produces "everything", that "chaos" produces "order", that "randomness" produces "design" and so on....
Hi
Funny how everything revolves around God !
Theists who see His existence in the things made Romans 1:1
And Atheists who see all things made and think that proves He doesn’t exist!😂
Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it. All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It didn't matter. He was believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!
Apparently you haven't got the memo. Creation ministries is now saying evolution happens much faster than anyone thinks. The reason for this about turn is simple. Someone realized the story of Noah's ark wouldn't work if two of each animal had to be aboard. There are just far too many different animals. So, taking a creationist precept, the idea of "kinds",, they posit that there didn't have to be two of every different animal, there only had to be two of each different "kind" (I put "kind" in brackets because no one really knows what it means). The problem they ran into with that was the Flood didn't happen that long ago (according to their story, about 4500 years), and therefore all the existing different animals had to evolve from the much smaller number of "kinds" in that short period. So now the story is evolution happens much faster than scientists suggested, allowing for the many different animals appear on earth in a very short period of time. Yes, I know this accepts the idea of evolution, but it does put a limit on it, saying something of one "kind" cannot change to another "kind". Strangely enough, that is true. You cannot evolve so much that you are no longer the descendant of your ancestors. However, the descendants of ancestor species can diverge enough they can no longer reproduce together, creating now species. That is also true of the ancestor species. An ancestor species may be one branch of many produced by their own ancestors.
@@throckmortensnivel2850that’s interesting since we can trace all people on earth back to the 3 sons of Noah. Oh well
Accountability stinks …..
@@PhilIsaak There is a fundamental misunderstanding about tracing our ancestors. Yes, there is a Y-chromosome Adam, and a mitochondrial Eve. So there was a single individual who was the father of all humans, and a single individual who was the mother of alll lhumans. The error comes in when people think they lived at the same time. They didn't. The other error is in thinking they were the only humans alive at the time. They weren't. However as far as Noah and his family, if indeed they were the ancestors of the human race, then we would all be Jewish, right? That would include Aficans and North/South American pre-Columbian populations. We have pretty clear evidence that those population are far older than the biblical flood, so there must be an error in there somewhere. Either the biblical flood missed them, which means it wasn't worldwide, or the spread of humans after the flood was very rapid. It would also mean the evolution of humans after the flood was very rapid. I'm not sure how you work that out, but I'm willing to consider your theory.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 according to the Bible Abraham was a pagan whom God called from Ur to go to Canaan so technically he was the first Hebrew however that worked but I appreciate your points and intelligent discussion!!
@@throckmortensnivel2850 you are so deceived. The Jews are one tribe of 12 from the Israelite nation of 12 tribes. Noah and His sons predate the Jews and the other 11 tribes. We are all just one race the human race. This man speaks truth with scientific evidence. Your rejection of it just proves the Bible more as it prophecies your attitude in many people in these last days.
This type of videos are awakening Americans and Europeans....
Great videos CMI! Love it
Glad you enjoy it!
Really great work on this video, all around! Informative, engaging, distraction-free.
Except all of it is wrong. Atheism has got nothing to do with these 5 talking points.
@@sound.of.science explain.
@@therick363 alright. Then what created mankind and what does that entail?
@@therick363From literally nothing existing to you and I having this exchange - what is required for that to be possible?
@@therick363 what is your something?
Production value was great on this video. 😎
Glad you enjoyed it
This was very engaging. They both did a good job
Thank you.
@@creationministriesintl who is the nice lady that per say host the conversation?
Fabulous!
Thank God he created you people. Your videos are extremely precious and are now in a playlis that is still being created but have already more than 1000 videos
This channels format is so good. keep it up yall.
Last 10 minutes, moving with Spirit of God ❤
Love Dr Don Batten. Aweeeeeesome discussion
Religious apologists always poison the well with their ridiculous choice of words for things. They just don't want to believe for fear of shattering their religious beliefs
You mean "atheist" apologists...there fixed it for you.
They'll come up with the phrase, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and tickle their heads with saying it, just so they can laugh at thoughtful people who believe in a creator who loves us.
I suppose I'm in a bit of a bad mood right now, so sorry if my comment comes out as passive-aggressive, but from my experience, a lot of religious people use religion to promote harmful ideas.
Honestly, I have no problem with someone believing in a creator, but I dislike religious people who take absolutely no criticism.
@@MBZ901 I sometimes wonder if "church people" are not trying to hedge their bets on there being a "God", but don't actually believe there is one. Religious people can be odd indeed. I wish I wasn't so critical-sounding, but that's honestly how I see it sometimes. "I believe!" doesn't say very much, even Satan and his angels do that much.
@@MBZ901 but atheists never promote harmful ideas? Have you read any 20th century history?
Calling observation and scientific theory miracles is the biggest conflation I have ever heard. Is the earth a miracle? Is the sun a miracle? I think this serves theists to discredit those with genuine skepticism.
Miracle without a miracle worker. Nailed it.🎉🎉
This logic is what convinced me that we were created.
It's not a very good basis for determining we were created. Where did logic come from?
God.
No, humans are the result of evolution
Then you need to work on your logic skills, because what this guy says is just dormant.
There are things we don't know and simply put, that is the answer. 'We don't know', not some made up nonsense that some made up god did it. That is not an answer, and there no evidence to even present it as a hypothesis.
Some of the incomplete answers being worked on are not 'miracles' as this clown keeps describing them. He calls them that because he clearly has zero understanding of them, hence why he calls them a 'miracle'. They are not. They are a hypothesis based on what information we have to work with at the current point in time.
Present your evidence that a god made the universe in a science journal, then if it stacks up, you shall receive your nobel prize.
For me it was the group-think; or at least that's what pushed me toward my faith. People simply state things without evidence in science, and then turn around and say religion does that, yet they don't try either themselves. So I looked into the evidence for science, and they fell short of the glory of God. After performing the experiment Jesus Christ provided us (it is ongoing, and my variables aren't quite perfect, but I'm getting closer!), I found the hypothesis has resolved to True.
❤❤❤❤ Such a good discussion!!
Yep, it's incredible the required axioms for a worldview that would pretend order derives from chaos & nothing basically.
And there is nothing to guarantee the uniformity of the universe will not revert back to chaos tomorrow.
@@therick363 The scientific method is grounded in the philosophical principles of induction and causality, meaning everything that had a beginning (like the universe according to thermodynamic laws) had a cause. Atheists cannot explain what caused the universe without violating the law of non-contradiction. Try listening to what creation science professors have to say; it may well save your soul.
Yep, and it's incredible that you fail to recognise that a pretentious axiom is an oxymoron!
@@garethwest9069I’m not sure how believing in anything, could save your soul. It doesn’t make the slightest amount of sense. It’s just nonsense peddled around to encourage people to join their team.
@@roscius6204 God is Eternal Order, so order coming from Order (God) makes sense. God created the universe from His eternal power, which is not 'nothing' so, no, that's not what God did. Two very different belief systems here. Atheists think the very ANTI-SCIENCE myth of chaos creating order. This is how much you guys grasp at straws to run from God. You even choose to believe a very illogical, irrational myth for your supposed beginning of the universe. Order only ever comes from intelligence, and we observe (science) this on a daily basis, thus knowing God (Intelligence) created the *ORDERLY* laws of nature makes perfect, scientific sense.
Thank you so much for the work you do. This topic is so much more critical than Christians give it credit for
Good video. My attention span usually isn't the greatest, but good. I think also the key issue here is that we must also define a miracle. Amos 4:13 gives God credit for creating things such as wind, so I think of miracles as God doing things differently rather than God intervening.
@Dr-Jonathan-Sarfati-FM Thank you. I always thought of the analogy that knowing how the painter paints doesn't rid the need for a painter. Therefore, the god-of-the-gaps logic really doesn't work for skeptics who want to rid the world of God because understanding how God made things doesn't rid the need for God at all. It's just how God works, and us understanding a small fraction of His ways doesn't negate the need for Him. I'm sure our current laws would be "miracles" in a different Universe God made if He was to do things differently.
Amen
So many intelligent people can be so blind, which shows deception is not about intelligence. Deception is a CHOICE
Lots of good points!🎉
I see you’re blocking comments. Was my post too uncharitable?
There's more than one moderator on this channel, but I personally haven't deleted anything from this video thus far. (We delete anything that deserves it, naturally. Google also filters out unfit comments.)
@@creationministriesintl "We delete anything that deserves it". Does this mean that only credulous posts are allowed?
Just for fun, I looked at one of your other videos and quelle surprise, 19 missing comments!
Please tell me, why does a material universe obey IMMATERIAL laws? (I doubt the mods/yt algo will delete your response, if you dare).
@@garethwest9069 “if you dare” Are you a child!?
The universe does not ‘obey’ Laws. Our Laws are descriptions of how the universe works.
As an aside, exactly how does this have anything to do with what I said? Also, are the capitals important? And are there any MATERIAL laws or was the 'IMMATERIAL' redundant?
@@auntietheistjuror You came here to troll, which is childish; nice projection.
"As an aside, exactly how does this have anything to do with what I said?"
What does anything YOU said have to do with the subject here? See how that works?
"The universe does not ‘obey’ Laws. Our Laws are descriptions of how the universe works."
Our universe indeed obeys mathematical laws, which are abstract, concepts, if you will, not "descriptions". Numbers are concepts, they are abstract in nature, not physical; they exist in the mind.
Written numerals are not numbers; they are representations of numbers.
Laws of math are conceptual, not physical.
Laws of math were not created but discovered. They didn't evolve, ie '3' didn't become'7'.
Planets obey mathematical laws that existed BEFORE people did. They didn't come from an ever changing universe, either.
They are conceptual, ie they exist in a mind
They are universal, ie they apply everywhere
They are invariant, ie they don't change with time
They are exceptionless
The naturalist's dilemma is that laws of math exist in a mind but they also existed before people, so they are not the product of a human mind.
From who's mind do they come?
You missed speaking of their flying spaghetti monster the Oort cloud?
"You missed speaking of their flying spaghetti monster the Oort cloud?" The Oort cloud is one of atheism's inventions without any scientific evidence.
lol. Flying snowball monster. Funny how the JWST hasn’t seen it either and it can look out to redshift 20. No snowball generators.
amazing, please keep doing those kinds of videos!
Speaking as an atheist I think there is a need to distinguish between terms, as improbability, remarkable, coincidental and miraculous as these are not synonyms. The definition of a miracle as “an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency” includes the proposal that the event is attributed to divine agency.
If there is no God then there is by definition no divine agency.
So for example; The existence of life might be improbable, and remarkable, but I am forced to accept that it happened, because here I am surrounded by life. The exact mechanism or chain events that caused it is not known.
On the other hand, in Exodus when the Pharaoh’s Priest casts down his staff and it turns into a snake, that would be a miracle. I leave you to explain the source of this particular miracle.
Does that make sense?
If a random string of symbols, by definition, contains no information, and random processes can create order (if it's components are capable of such) but not information, AND life on Earth is highly complex molecules interacting as systems which both co-existed with the megabytes of digitally encoded information, where did the information come from?
Semiotic meaning of linearly organized symbols requires an intelligence which plans and then creates that order with a specific end in mind.
And, you say this is created by random processes? By definition, it cannot be.
@@glenliesegang233 That is an interesting question, which I will have a think about and get back to you.
I would agree that life even in its simplest form seems a big step away from non life structures, and consciousness feels like a big step forward from life without it.
While I think about it, will you tell me something, do you believe that bears for example have evolved into different species since the flood, or did all the different bears from 60 Kg Moon Bears (which would freeze in the Artic), to 600Kg Polar Bears (which would starve in the meagre environments where the Moon bears live) (Or the extinct 1600Kg short faced bears) come on board the ark as separate species?
Glen, your question reminded me how rusty I am on genetics, which causes my delay in responding, and you may need to look for a better answer elsewhere.
There is a word game in which you start with a word and can change the order of the letters, or swap one letter on each turn. The result must be a word in the dictionary, so for example you cannot translate Door into Dorr, but can translate door into doom or poor or rood.
So you can go from slime- smile- smite-spite - spate -spata -tapas- pasta - pasts -pests - jests - Jesus
This sequence was generated by a controlling mind, but a simple computer program which generates a mutation of the word slime at random might come up with thousands of variations that are meaningless such as slimt or zlime, but also come up with smile.
It will discard all those quasi-words that are meaningless and just keep those like smile and limes that do make sense.
Cell division is subject to errors in the genetic code. If there was a controlling mind, then the errors could be discarded or facilitated.
The question is does this also happen without a controlling mind?
Does that make sense so far?
@@simonthorneycroft1339Trying theorize life and it's origins is a big problem that raise more questions as scientists dig deeper. No one can ultimately have all the answers, but one thing is certain a designer will be outside our reality to create this material world. You see the designer only in his design
@@kofiackah283 I apologise, I am not quite following what you are trying to say?
Are you saying that there is a designer, who operates outside our world / reality, and so we will never be able to grasp him or his processes, and that the design is evidence of the designer?
Apologies for asking.
So I like the chair explanation but what if you took it a step further and we said the rose created itself we could say that you know the chair we could recreate the chair ourselves but what about the rose you invited somebody to to make you a rose or to recreate the rows they could not do it from nothing I guess that's true with the chair also because the material the wood for say that it took to make the chair had to come from somewhere and that a human being out of nothing could not create the would it took to make the chair or create the rose or the dirt that the rose grew in or the tree grew in iron and the minerals and the things in the soil that even in the water it took all these things are so far outside of the realm of the human possibility that it had to come from a supernatural creator
Great video I try to tell people online everyday will be atheist agnostics. Whoever even some Christians who start to doubt I try to remind them of these facts these truths a lot of people who are Christians are evolutionists that try to remind them of these things about people and end times which we are in don't want to believe it. They want to know it. They want to understand it. It's too late for them most likely. But who knows only God does. Again, good job, God bless you.
Don Batten: up to 20% of the genes in each organism are unique.
Source of that information?
there is none as he know who believe in him will not check that
I believe he meant that "up to 20% of the genes in each species are unique". When discussing in quick pace mistakes can happen. He was obviously talking of the Orphan genes.
Orphan genes are genes that lack a detectable homologue outside of a given species or lineage. Most genes have known homologues. Two genes are homologous when they share an evolutionary history, and the study of groups of homologous genes allows for an understanding of their evolutionary history and divergence. ... Studying the origins of a gene becomes more difficult when there is no evident homologue. The discovery that about 10% or more of the genes of the average microbial species is constituted by orphan genes raises questions about the evolutionary origins of different species as well as how to study and uncover the evolutionary origins of orphan genes.
@@jounisuninen
Thank You
HalleluYAH in the name of Yeshua.
We understand a lot about all five of these 'miracles'. Creationists make money pretending that we don't.
Pick one and make me understand it.
@@jelly7310 Pick any one you like and look it up on Wikipedia. You'll get a short summary of current scientific understanding and the evidence that led to those conclusions.
@@ianchisholm5756 Well there's your problem...you depend on Wikipedia as a source of truth and knowledge....don't be so gullible McFly.
@@alantasman8273 Not sure where you get the idea that I consider Wikipedia to be "a source of truth and knowledge". It's a useful source if you want to get some basic background information about a scientific topic. I mentioned it because Dr. Batten is using his background in agricultural research as authority to persuade gullible Christians that arguing from ignorance is a viable method of establishing the truth.
@@ianchisholm5756 You referred people to Wiki...and it is often not a balanced source of scientific knowledge.
Love this video! :)
Exactly, their only assumption is: we dont believe in God, then it just happened naturally.
The monster flies best with the right sauce. Also the teapot with steam comming out of the spout can change its orbit.
How do they remember all of this? Makes me sad. I can’t even remember what I read this morning.
Evolution can only happen through cell replication yet cell replication can only happen through evolution. Answer = Creation is the only way.
Absolute nonsense. We have many examples of self replicating molecules which are nothing to do with evolution
Actually Evolution can only happen when inanimate matter achieves the status of life...which has never been observed to happen. Life begets life but atheists cannot explain the existence of life. Yet they purport to know how life has evolved.
Any support for this claim? evidence this is so. science provides plenty for it's theories. religion 0
@ulftnightwolf you're pushing the conflict thesis, which has been utterly debunked by Historians of Science. To better understand this issue i recommend reading the Oxford press release:"Of Popes and Unicorns"
The funniest part is they did find the Flying Spaghetti Monster deep under the ocean.
Don references a bygone era of relative ignorance ("back in Darwin's days"), where you'd look down a microscope and "see a blob", a time when we didn't have the knowledge or tools to properly understand the complexity of life and the universe. He then acknowledges that we now understand a great deal more, now that our instruments of inquiry have advanced. Yet he dismisses non-Creationist assertions/theories (such as dark matter) as being "miracles" when in fact they are simply the next "blob" under the microscope.
He acknowledges that scientific progress has clarified humanity's understanding of the world and then he mocks or dismisses ongoing scientific work that is seeking to clarify humanity's understanding of the world...
Is he unaware that he is contradicting himself, or is he being willfully hypocritical? The scientific method is a continuous cycle of research, hypothesis, testing, analysis, and discussion, and being a biologist one would expect that he understands and respects this, and yet he seems to relish in the act of misrepresenting it (at least when it applies to anything that contradicts his Christian beliefs).
If you do not know the answer to a complex question and do not then default to a supernatural creator as the answer, that does not mean you have to believe in a miracle, it means that you are aware of the current limits of human knowledge and that perhaps you trust in the scientific process to eventually illuminate these dark corners of ignorance (as it has done for hundreds of years). Don is simply pointing at anything humanity (or simply Don himself) does not yet understand fully and saying "God did that." People used to point at the arc of the sun and the phases of the moon and say "(a) god did that" and yet now we understand these things as natural, physical processes.
A calm and kindly demeanor paired with the odd reference to Lawrence Krauss and other scientists does not mean the man is arguing in good faith, either. His sneering misrepresentations of non-creationist belief and certain scientific theories, as well as his selective application of his own logic, should signal to any viewer that this "discussion" is far from even-handed. His characterization of atheistic thought in section 5 is contemptible (same goes for the host). For someone whose religion preaches humility, he sure seems comfortable on his holier-than-thou high horse.
Don claims that Darwin's beliefs weren't driven by science, but by his desire to not believe in god. It seems Don's words and beliefs are not driven by much beside his desire to look down upon those who don't believe in his god, those who "haven't really thought it through".
The point is that in the “bygone era” all evidence points to a Creator just as all efforts and science up to today still points to a Creator, to God. In the future you’ll surely discover even more complexity in all fields of science that also point to God just as it is designed.
The truth is nothing will never be able to create everything. Creation requires a creator that is beyond the material realm. Before space, time, and matter has to be a being that is space less, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, personal, and intelligent. That’s what we call God. All science and theology prove the universe had a beginning or today would never have gotten here and usable energy wouldn’t exist. The first miracle in the Bible is the very first verse. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If the first miracle has proof all around us then every miracle is at least possible.
Atheists will only ever be able to fall back on their only excuse,”We just don’t know yet. Maybe one day.” When all evidence points to God that will always be the answer of those who refuse to accept God in their life.
Atheists will never know where they came from, what their purpose is, and where they’re going. That’s the definition of lost.
Luke 19:10
Jesus came to seek and to save the lost.
@@jettruth How can all evidence in all eras point to a god if you aren't presupposing the existence of a god? If new evidence comes to light or our understanding of existing evidence changes, is the answer "god" even before we have properly investigated it? This is what it sounds like you are saying. And this is a rather grand claim to make, that ALL evidence points to god (which is incorrect). Are you aware of ALL evidence? Do you understand it? You are free to make that claim, but that is a claim of faith, not of reason or science or evidence. My issues with Don's words were that he picks and chooses when he invokes science and when he invokes faith and he misrepresents the former whenever it is convenient to the latter.
I already dealt with your claim regarding the "atheist excuse", as you put it. From a secular perspective, we did not yet know why the sun arced across the sky, but now we do---and it isn't because a god moved it with his hand or carried it across the sky with a chariot. Now, there are still things we do not know, but science is reliably making them known.
Please do not speak for non-believers when it comes to issues of meaning or purpose. I am not lost.
You buerk, everything we have learnt and will ever learn will clearly show a creator, in other words all powerfully God
@@beecee985 How is it that the things we have learned "clearly" show a creator when scientific consensus says otherwise?
@@deancroxon4217 There is no scientific proof that points to some nothing producing everything, and scientific consensus is a cultish term to mean people who are bound together by a particular belief, not by actual scientific evidence or proof of what they claim
1) Origin of the universe
2) Origin of the stars
3) Origin of life
4) Origin of the diversity of life
5) Origin of meaning, morality and intellect
Not one of these originates from the suspension of the natural phenomena(of which all the above-named is derived) exclusively in your favour.
I've asked this question many times with no real answer.......How do we know what a star is made of or what the sun is made of? Who decided what they are made of and how did they come to that conclusion?
Another one is , how do we know what is at the center of the earth or below 8 miles since thats the deepest hole on the planet?
lol there are many ways to know what sun is made of , read more books , "how do we know what is at the center of the earth or below 8 miles since that's the deepest hole on the planet?" by studying the seismic waves, you not knowing don't don't mean we don't know it
Study spectroscopy and the use of equipment which senses the transmission through the Earth the motions earthquakes produce, and how the measurements around the globe can be used to generate a picture of what is inside in the same way a CT scan does.
Good questions. If you throw different materials onto a fire you will see that they emit different colours as they burn. We can tell what materials are in stars by the different colours of light being emitted
Waves such as sound travel differently through different materials eg solids, liquids, gases.
When earthquakes happen at the surface seismic waves travel through the earth to the core and are reflected and refracted back to the surface in different ways. By measuring these we can work out what they passed through on the way.
The other big clue is the shape and strength of the earth's magnetic field
Never allow an atheist to use a common term without defining it. When they say, faith, make them define it, and know what the Bible means by faith. When they say miracle make them define it, and make sure you understand the biblical understanding of miracle. When they say magic, make them to find it and make sure you understand the biblical definition of magic. You will find that you were using the same words, but with vastly different meanings.
- Psalms 14:1
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
- Romans 1:18-20
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
Genesis 19:30-38
@@brunobastos5533
And even Lot is counted righteous.
Will you be?
❤I love this. This is powerful. Amen
2:46 An atheist, Dr MayLing Ng who claims to have a degree in quantum physics made this counter argument to my quoting William Lane Craig' kalam cosmological argument.
Thanks right. The Atheists don't really have a good answer around the problem.
@@creationministriesintl But you do. You have a book and a lot of indoctrinated salesman as proof . . . A sense of Irony would serve you well.
the universe didn't come from nothing , and E=MC^2 explain it , if you can't understand it is your problem
@@brunobastos5533 Scientists believe that the speed of light is constant....so where do you get C^2?
@@alantasman8273 where the rest i E=MC^2 , C is a constant , the equation is proven right by experiments , kinetic energy is EK= 1/2 mv2 also proven right
how does anybody take any of this seriously?
Exactly! Skeptics have to believe in magical matter and magical morphing monkeys.
@Jungle Jargon 👍
Great post. That is being very nice.. 😉
They believe any fraud that is made-up to support their skepticism of there being a creator - GOD, Even Jesus Christ said that he and the Father are one.
@@Alec_Cox Yep
😅😅😅 yup
@@therick363 Prove it in a livestream, fake.
@@therick363
More like theDodo -
What do I have to gain by telling lies? You obviously do not keep up with current archeology or science. You're not a credible person, so you are the one who spreads the lies that you haven't done the tests on or about. .
They don't have a problem with an amoeba magically manifesting itself in a mud puddle, but they are all about science.
No, amoeba evolved after billions of years
@@globalcoupledances Sure it did. And where did the amoeba come from? Intelligence denier.
@@beestoe993 Amoebas are Eukaryotes. The phylogenetic tree shows that Eukaryotes are closer to Archaea than to Bacteria. The mitochondria came from Proteobacteria
@@globalcoupledances Evolution is theory fueled by imagination. And you can pretend until the cows come home, but you can NOT explain abiogenesis.
BRAV FREAKIN O 🔥🔥🔥. Sublime video God bless you all.
I fully believe in a creator but I also believe the bible was created by men. The search goes on and on.
The miracle of molecules to man! Amazing what the magic wand of time can do. 😅
on the bright side you know the bible is wrong, and there are things that are impossible for your god.
that is a good start.
@@78endriago The Bible is the only accurate record of ancient history. Completely true cover to cover.
@@danminer5343 that just means you never did basic research.
the world wide flood might be the easiest story in the bible to show never happened.
3 things the True Living God cannot do. He cannot lie. He cannot deny His own reality and character. He cannot be unjust, which includes ignoring sin. Fortunately for us, He became the sacrifice for our sins, so that all who turn and follow Him have forgiveness, relationship with Him, and eternal life. We've done our basic research, and it's true. Will you be humble enough to research it objectively?
Keep adding the magic time. Even unlimited time doesn't explain the 5 basics he brought up
Those are not miracles, those are unknowns. Why make something up to explain these events?
These are not merely unknowns, waiting for explanation. Rather, these events require that the known scientific laws of chemistry, physics, etc. actually be _violated_ to make the evolutionary narrative work (and ad hoc explanations, such as dark energy, are also invented for the same reason).
Origin of life (to pick one) is a good example. The laws of chemistry are firmly against a naturalistic origin of life. Details here: creation.com/origin-of-life
@@creationministriesintl they really don't. tell me what laws of science are getting broken for evolution to happen, for the earth to be forms and the universe expanding.
@@creationministriesintl Incorrect. These are unknowns. I've never heard any scientist claim that they have irrefutable proof of how the universe came to exist in its current form. The beauty of science is that when an existing theory is found to be fallible, it is abandoned, the new theory is 'adopted', and then scientists set about trying to find flaws in the current scientific model. Evolution is a process we can observe in animal and plant species to this day. Evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As for the origin of the universe, consciousness, etc.? Nobody knows. They are unknowns.
@@creationministriesintlwhy not just name one of the laws that are violated right here. Saves time
Their argument takes more faith, everything from Nuttin jive us a broke
@@roscius6204
The evedence is gods word, in law an eye witness, how is it the world once knew these things now they are disputed
@@roscius6204
So true about hiding,
This is unbelievable
I love it when theists tell me as an atheist what I believe.
Tell us what you believe then , we’d love to hear how everything came into existence .
You’d be doing everyone on the planet a favour , and end all the silly conjecturing by all the greatest minds in the world !
Atheists are theists...the US courts have designated atheism as a religion.
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh Albert Einstein thought that there must have been an intelligent mind that created the universe .
Nothing comes from nothing , and you don’t have to be Einstein to realise that .
It’s just a matter of humbling yourself and surrendering your position as God to the creator who actually deserves the glory .
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh Correct .
I did not say he did .
He was a Deist , not a Theist .
But not an atheist !
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh He was smarter than that ……….
Name anything you say aint a miracle and create it including yourself
What big bang what what what Big bang which would cause chaos
Also, I mean no disrespect by this comment. I work in a scientific field and I go out to eat lunch with my atheist friends everyday and love my brothers. I think it comes down to this - if you believe that a loving God could put His children into a situation where we have to have faith in Him and that's one of the most important reasons for our being here is to have the opportunity to build a relationship with Him in a circumstance where it's difficult to even proof that He exists then you lean toward believing in religion and if you just can't believe that because it seems too naive or for any other reason then you tend to lean towards atheism.
I mean no disrespect and I don't even know if I'm quoting the right person here but here's a quote I'd like to share:
" A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
-Francis Bacon
God bless you and your atheist friends I hope you can witness that there's a creator through the work of His creation.
Hi
I must object to the use of the term ‘Miracles’ WHICH EXIST ONLY IN THE GOD GIVEN CREATION!
BIG BANG THEORISTS MUST ONLY BE ALLOWED THE TERM ‘MAGIC’ FOR THEIR WILD AND WOOLY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF ANYTHING!
These miracles do not exist, but religions are full of miracles.
Science is not allowed to have miracles. You missed the point.
@@555atUBut these are no miracles.
@@georg7120 then whats the mechanism for how atoms generate genetic code?
@@georg7120 a universe from nothing is not a miracle? Not even magic? You must have seen everything.
@@555atU A creator from nothing is a miracle.
The origin of the universe isn’t a miracle
Neither is origin of stars
Neither is origin of life that one is for every athiest individually and when athiest say miracle they mean
MAGIC
Origin of diversity of life just not a miracle not even close you could maybe get away with the others but not this
Morality and intelligence and meaning also not a miracle just none of these things are miracles
It's funny when you call out how religious so many of these athiests beliefs in these impossible explanations for creation without God, they will just say, "Well I don't believe that.." and eventually they'll just claim to be a nihilist and act like you have to prove them wrong. Sorry, nihilism is a you problem. It's obvious there was a Creator.
What limited mindset do you have to have to think that because you cant physically prove an Entity exists it means it doesn't? Why would the Creator stoop to such a miniscule thing as to do a miracle to prove to a disbeliever that he exists When Creation is all the proof you need? No one knows who built the pyramids but we all know it didnt build itself right?
Except that we do know who built the pyramids of Giza. The ancient Egyptians built them.
The problem with your logic is your select application of it. I can't prove that Kali nd Coyote don't exist, so therefore they must?
No evidence for Kali and Baal. Lots of evidence that they are the constructs of human minds. Tons of evidence for the Bible, it's historical record, and it's conclusions
@@timparks1098 Much the Old Testament stories like the Flood and the story of Moses is clearly cribbed from older material. There's no evidence for supernatural events that are not explainable by more conventional means such as the "division:" of the Red Sea was obviously inspired by a tsunami caused by the destruction of Thera.
Did it occur to you that if there is no proof or evidence for your so called creator that it might not exist? At all?
The description of how stars form and how heavy elements form is so far wrong it is laughable. This guy has no clue what a supernova is
Check out Nassim Haramein's theory about dark matter, he isnt part of the group of scientists you talk about
None of these are miracles.
As much as they deny it, evolutionist's both have faith and a "god of the gaps". They need miracles when their magical science runs out of air...all the time.
Blind luck created nothing.
Those aren’t miracles, You assume calling them miracles. Now a 600 year old man that’s a unbelievable miracle. As in I don’t believe it.
It takes way too much energy to be an atheist.
True... most believers are way too lazy to think for themselves.
I'd be a theist if you could somehow prove God existed to me, but what I've come to find is that you can't prove or disprove God
@@MBZ901 Can one believe in a painting, a building or a simple meal without knowing there was a painter, a builder or a cook? The aforementioned are WAY more simple than the cosmos, life, a sense of shared morality, gravity etc. I may not have ever met the painter, builder or the cook but I see their work and I know.
To believe that nothing created everything, and that non-life started life, to me, these great miracles would require the upmost faith.
@@transworldbusinessadvisorsnc I understand the analogy, but it's applying known logic to the unknown. I don't believe that nothing created everything, nor do I believe that an intelligent being created everything. The truth is-I don't know. Even if life was created, there's no way to know precisely who or what created it.
Unless science can definitively prove how the universe was created, which I doubt it will, I suspect I'll remain agnostic.
According to evolution, whatever is evolving will start from very basic complexity which over time gets more and more complex. Therefore when a human was slowly evolving, its eyes ears and nose must have evolved before the super complex brain. How can this be true because the eyes, ears and nose can only function by nerves sending information to the brain. They all had to be there at the same time, meaning creation.
first of all… a single human does not evolve. It is a change in genes from generation to generation that results in large changes over large amounts of time. Second, it does not take a complex brain to interpret sound, smell, or sight. Basic organisms have light sensing cells that react to stimuli. eyes can come before a brain. Just because you can’t immediately rationalize the truth doesn’t mean that it doesnt exist
The eyes ears etc would not have to evolve before the brain, and as you say that would make no sense. Nobody thinks that's what happened.
This is not correct. It is possible to sense and react to your environment without a brain. Watch how sunflowers track the sun throughout the day.
There are many very simple animals with rudimentary light sensors and no brain as such.
The brain would have come much later
You are talking about irreducible complexity. There is a limit to how far the complex of a life form...the cell, can be regressed back before it become totally worthless and has no long term viability.
None of these need a brain. Sunflowers can sense and track the position of the sun. No brain required
Joke
Statements that begin with "it has been shown " should include a source. If they don't give ine then everything in the rest of the sentence can be ignored
Where's your source?
@@555atU my source for what?
@@mattbrook-lee7732 the logic in your comment. It's been shown 3x3=9.
@555atU OK I will rephrase. Statements that are not common knowledge and cannot easily be demonstrated should include a source.
This guy when talking about humans and chimps evolving from the same creature says (12:10) "it has been shown that it can't happen ". That would clearly be disputed by the vast majority of scientists so it really needs a source. Where was it shown? When? By who?
If you're happy just taking his word for that, fill your boots
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Richard Dawkins does the same thing all the time. I don't question what he thinks is true. It has been shown that evolution can't happen, with Darwin's theory, by many scientists going back to the 1960's. The whole premise of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there's irreducible complexity, and a host of "chicken and egg" problems starting with the first cell. Evolution presupposes life already existing but has zero account of any mechanism that started it and where the information came from.
What do you have that says it's true?
Natural selection should be accepted as an explanation for adaptation, and accepted and taught as such.
It is so utterly and irrefutable simple.
This business of, "Natural selection is wrong," is sad, because Darwin's observation and explanation of the finches and Iguanas on the Galapagos are clearly fact.
But "What it is that evolves," is so far from simple that it demands an examination of the "how."
Metamorphosis requires whole new sets of proteins, stretches of RNA and DNA which must be activated and silenced in precise order.
"Orphan genes" have no homology with any others. They appear de novo.
The noncoding DNA sequences are part of and mainly comprise a vast operating system of RNA and highly specific proteins which interact with their environment to regulate this on-off emergent well choreographed dance of genes as above.
A Superintelligence best explains both abiogenesis and de novo gene appearance episodically.
If Aliens, they sure possess a level of insight and creativity far beyond even any intelligence we can imagine.
The word miracle is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Anyhow I would have a lot more respect if these two actually proved the existence of God. Which they cannot. Pray on the video and get God to levitate something or manifest. They have no scientific proof for God. Calling something we cannot explain a miracle does not prove God. What evidence do you have for God?
In the video (or article: creation.com/five-atheist-miracles) Dr Batten discusses several things which naturalists/atheists must believe in but which actually _contradict_ the known laws of physics/chemistry/genetics.
If that doesn't make you question the paradigm, what evidence _would_ convince you that something outside of the nature (i.e. something SUPER-natural) had to have been involved?
BTW, "proof" is big word which good scientists don't use a whole heap. "Proof for God"? We're happy to go with "Evidence for God"-and there is lots of it. But the things mentioned in this video/article are a suitable starting point. (Also see creation.com/cab-1)
You want scientific (i.e. naturalistic) proof for God who is supernatural? The proof for God is that if he doesn't exist, you can't know anything.
Its easy to prove the existence of God such as the complete DNA is every Kind of organism on earth which contains the code for every tiny part in perfection with zero flaws of design. Absolutely no design mistakes.
The traditional proofs of God are what has been revealed. General Revelation are proofs available to all, even Andrew MacDonald 968. Nature is part of that, including the evidence within it for design proving existence of a Designer, which the video addressed. "Yea, but that's not proof, just a filler explanation until a materialistic explanation can be figured out." That silly counter argument could be used for any truth, reality, or proof. "1+1 only seems to =2, there's no proof, and those superstitious masses will continue to believe it until the inevitable proof of a different conclusion comes along." The other part of General Revelation is conscience, the instinctive ability within us all to know that there is an objective morality. Also touched on in the video. Dunno bout AM968, but every other atheist I know concedes that it has been wrong for commie or fascist govts of the past century to slaughter portions of their populations regardless if they could claim some greater good to the rest of the population. It is a proof of God. The Bible says God has put eternity in our hearts. Ah, that gets into the Special Revelation, in which God has reached out to us with proof of His existence, love, etc in ways that are available to some and at some times, such as the Bible, miracles that point to supernatural intervention, revealing Himself to people individually through their hearts and thoughts, etc. Keep seeking, AM698, and you will find, keep knocking and the door will be opened, keep asking because there are answers.
Everything with a beginning has a creator!
Circular reasoning by Atheists has them chasing their evolving tail.
Edit: my spelling has been corrected. Please forgive me! The absolute shame that I felt was almost overwhelming! 😂😂😂😂
@Acts20.24 -
The theory of evolution would never survive if it only had private money... look at all of the taxpayer money that they waste on evolution begging for federal grant money through the university, which, then gets accolades for fraudulent studies, and fake peer results, and extra taxpayer money; especially if the study is at a "State University". All paid by the taxpayers to perpetuate the myth of evolution - from banana to man mythology.
At least they can spell "atheists" 🙄
@@iainfraser5274
Is that all you have?
@@Stevenowski That’s ALL that’s needed
just to point out that what they said was nonsense and not scientific.
if you define miracle as an extremely unlikely event. Than sure.
If you define miracle as an event that breaks the laws of physics. Than no.
Unlikely events happen all the time. Every time you shuffle a deck of cards you get a result that is 1 in ~80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
Using definition 1:
Miracle 1: Nope, it is currently unknown how the universe came about. Anyone that says it was unlikely is already grasping at things we do not know.
Miracle 2: Origin of stars is well known. Its gravity. There are a lot of stars. Not sure how this could be considered an unlikely event in any way.
Miracle 3: See miracle 1
Miracle 4: Evolution is a well understood and proven process that accounts for all diversity of life. Also not sure how this is and unlikely event.
Miracle 5: Meaning and morality are emergent properties from brains/minds/consciousnesses. Everyone single person has them, so again not sure how this is an unlikely event.
0:22 but i do not believe intellect came from "accidents", no1 does, only apologists say this.
0:24 i trust my thoughts because they have been correct about predicting reality quite often.
1:01 29 years! that must have been so many interactions with atheists. So i can expect not a single strawman argument than. Great!
2:41 dang that did not last long. Only apologists say that atheists think the universe came from nothing. all these 29 years speaking and still got that one wrong.
3:06 so even Krauss does not believe the universe came from (a philosophical) nothing. Thanks for debunking yourself.
3:39 Discover magazine as a source... Theory (in the colloquial sense) does not mean atheists believe this. Alan Guth first proposed this idea in 1980 and there was very little support for his idea's at that time, even less now.
4:39 They don't, because it makes no sense. The stupidity is in thinking atheists are so irrational they actually would believe something like this instead of concluding that this is so stupid, and maybe check if they actually believe this.
5:00 we are here. That makes the question of how we get there mute. Its still interesting to know, but not necessary.
5:53 there are no "gasses" during early inflation as there wasn't even matter.
6:18 an explosion is not everything uniformly moving outwards. Its very chaotic, everything bumping into eachother. Gravity does the rest.
6:37 The heavier elements come from the stars core becoming more and more dense thus the gravity increases and more pressure is exerted. Some of this energy (neutrons)bump into the elements which such energy they fuse into heavier elements (everything above iron). This makes it even more dense. When the pressure gets too big and the energy heats it up enough, the core explodes. These explosions also have enough energy to do this same process and create even more heavy elements.
7:03 No, some stars form from other stars but not all do.
7:18 Dark matter is not required for any of this.
Im gonna stop here. This is the very definition of strawman.
It would be the same as me spending 29 years doing this and after all that still saying Christians believe god is an old man sitting on a cloud...
The point with these 'miracles' is not that they are merely very _unlikely_ events, but rather that they contradict the very laws of physics/chemistry which science has done such a good job of identifying. Even many highly qualified secular scientists acknowledge the issues in each of the areas the video covered. To pick just one as an example, here's what Neil deGrasse Tyson once said about star formation:
“Not all gas clouds in the Milky Way can form stars at all times. More often than not, the cloud is confused about what to do next. Actually, astrophysicists are the confused ones here. We know the cloud wants to collapse under its own weight to make one or more stars. But rotation as well as turbulent motion within the cloud work against that fate. So, too, does the ordinary gas pressure you learned about in high-school chemistry class. Galactic magnetic fields also fight collapse: they penetrate the cloud and latch onto any free-roaming charged particles contained therein, restricting the ways in which the cloud will respond to its self-gravity. *The scary part is that if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, front line research would offer plenty of convincing reasons for why stars could never form.* ” [our emphasis]
- _Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries_ , p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007
The origin of life is another huge area of trouble for naturalistic thinking. To see some of the issues laid out, see creation.com/origin-of-life
Thanks for stopping by.
"Im gonna stop here. This is the very definition of strawman.
It would be the same as me spending 29 years doing this and after all that still saying Christians believe god is an old man sitting on a cloud..."
Your un-scientific rant ends ... with a strawman. smh Please tell me, why does a material universe obey IMMATERIAL laws?
You're NEVER gonna learn anything living inside an echo chamber, so here we go. Debunking the 'emergent properties' claim ...
This 'quantum escape' - an appeal to the fuzzy notion of ‘quantum indeterminacy’ claims that matter is not really predictable, since we have found strange anomalies in the quantum realm that seem to be inexplicable in terms of rigid cause and effect. This appeal does not work for three reasons:
First, there are different competing explanations of the results we see in quantum experiments, and it is far from clear which one is truly the correct one, if any. There are both indeterminate and determinate interpretations.
Second, the strange, unpredictable results we see are only observed at the quantum level. This unpredictability does not extend into the macroscopic world of trees, baseballs, mountains and human bodies. In the macroscopic world, experiments on matter are predictable and repeatable; that is exactly why science works in the first place. Atheists want to ignore the fact that brains, complicated or not, are macroscopic objects, not quantum particles. Whatever is going on in the quantum realm does not change the fact that matter is known to behave predictably according to the laws of physics.
Third, indeterminacy is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for freedom. For an agent to make a free choice, he must be the originator of the choice and in control of it. But if quantum events are truly random, this leaves no room for agency.
An emergent property, by its very nature, is an outworking of the same universal laws of physics that govern everything else in the material world. For example, some things are soft, and some things are hard. Softness and hardness are not properties of the constituent molecules of an object, but rather these properties ‘emerge’ as a function of the physical arrangement of those molecules. There is nothing magical about this; it happens predictably.
Salt is a particular chemical combination of the elements sodium and chlorine. The emergent property of ‘saltiness’ is not possessed by either of those elements; both sodium and chlorine are highly dangerous, toxic substances on their own. Yet, with the particular chemical combination of sodium chloride, we get the property of saltiness. Once again, this property is an outworking of set laws of physics and chemistry. There is nothing unpredictable or ‘magical’ happening there.
Therefore, emergent properties are, just like any other type of physical property of matter, an outworking of laws. Your secular priests merely deceive you when using their argument that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ that frees us from the otherwise established law of cause and effect. It is a bluff because it attempts to use the idea of physical properties to negate the very laws of physics that make these properties possible. It is an inherent contradiction.
Fundamentally, the ‘emergent property’ argument fails because it tries to turn physics, and indeed logic, against itself. There is simply no escape: without a supernatural soul, humans are tied down by the laws of physics. We are reduced to automatons, and the implications of this are far reaching. [taken from a CMI article. I'm a subscriber, not staff]
@@garethwest9069 Who are you responding too?
Because your post does not seem to be aimed at what i said.
You seem to accept emergent properties as part of a physical world. Great, so do i.
You imply i assign something "magical" to emergent properties. But i never said anything of the sort.
I have never heard of the emergent property argument (nor can i find anything on it other than from CMI claiming people make this argument).
Nor did i mention libertarian free will or that i hold that position (i do not).
So grats to debunking an argument i didn't make and wouldn't make.
You seem to make the exact same mistake as in the video.
You ascribe positions to me i do not hold. You debunk it and than say you have debunked me.
There is a name for something like that..stra... something...
As for Immaterial laws. Laws are not immaterial things (like a soul would be). They are the the interactions of the material.
Or put in a simpler way, They are the limits of the possible interactions of the material.
Look at it from inside and than outwards where the material stops at the laws of nature.
Rather than the laws of nature somehow being a thing that is imposing rules on the material.
@@aidanya1336 All you did was make a circular argument re 'emergent properties'. The response I offered is part of a scholarly article but your mind is tightly closed to the possibility of biblical creation, hence all your flippant responses and nonsensical claims.
Your response to my question reads like gobbledygook, tbh; it makes no sense whatsoever.
Anyhow, here goes ... Numbers are concepts, they are abstract in nature, not physical; they exist in the mind.
Written numerals are not numbers; they are representations of numbers.
Laws of math are conceptual, not physical.
Laws of math were not created but discovered. They didn't evolve, ie '3' didn't become'7'.
Planets obey mathematical laws that existed BEFORE people did. They didn't come from an ever changing universe, either.
They are conceptual, ie they exist in a mind
They are universal, ie they apply everywhere
They are invariant, ie they don't change with time
They are exceptionless
The naturalist's dilemma is that laws of math exist in a mind but they also existed before people, so they are not the product of a human mind.
From who's mind do they come?
UA-cam won't count my like
Accidents are the beginning of wisdom ❤
Not necessarily. If a piano falls on your head that's pretty much game over
1 minute and 40 seconds. A commentary says. atheist believe in magicians. Christians believe in something called Faith. You should look up definitions before you speak.😂. Adam and eve come from a Jewish golem spell.😅😅😅 So who Believe in magic?
"So who Believe in magic?" - Atheists.
The so-called "evolution" is full of magic. I think that's the point Richard Dawkins is trying to hide.
Science requires demonstrable and repeatable proof, but Richard Dawkins does not care. Science by definition: "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained." This tells indisputably that the evolution theory has never been proved using a scientific method. When has the evolution theory been successfully tested in laboratories? Answer: Never! No new body plan has ever emerged!
Instead of science, atheists have written their own superstitious book based on magic. It goes somehow like this: "In the beginning nothing exploded / expanded and created all of the matter in the known Universe." No "magic" needed - or huge magic needed?
Science has no observation of a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA) which is the cornerstone of evolution theory. In reality it is just an atheistic assumption. But here the Atheistic Magic comes in handy. According to evolutionists, UCA is supposed to have been a ”simple” cell. Assuming there was a UCA, it would've had the strange task to produce evolution while working against such evolution. According to the evolution theory, evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction, no variation, nothing for nature to select - no evolution. But ... with the Atheistic Magic everything is possible!
The self-replicating DNA molecules, encoded with billions of base pairs with specified / irreducibly complex genetic information were able to mindlessly create themselves out of dirt, air, heat and water? No one in his/her senses could believe it ... But no worry! Atheist Magic worked again!
Or the fact that Man's or his ”Fish Ancestor’s” all vital interdependent organs and their support systems had to be working together in tandem or we died and went extinct.
Which was the order for their "evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all "evolve" together? No ordinary magic would work, but the Atheistic Magic is of better quality ...
How about the chicken or egg? Which came first? Oh, the egg?? OK, just how did all of that specified DNA for that "proto chicken” get inside the egg? Who or what put it there?
No problem - Atheistic Magic works here big time!
How about “50 million years” old dinosaur red blood cells, soft tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last without biodegrading completely while it is known to rot in less than 10,000 years? No problem! Atheistic Magic doesn’t fail, so the fossils are 50 million years old, no matter what the evidence says.
During the course of "500 Million Years", while living in the same environment at the same time, some Jellyfish were evolving into humans, other Jellyfish were evolving into some other direction and some nowhere. How come? Don’t ask stupidities! Atheistic Magic solves this kind of illogicality with a pass of the magic wand.
We could go almost endlessly on about these atheistic superstitions 😃
There not miracles and love how she picks things Richard said when he was taking the piss bring up things he was serious about because he would destroy them every time
Misotheists look for a miracle and forget that they are one.
you're here by chance not a miracle.
@@MTBScotland Yes, this video was in my feed by pure chance, despite the algorithm.
Sooo . . . Even if I've "forgotten" and there is an God - Why is it definitively your God? Because your book says so? Why is it not Thor or Allah or Shiva or a big invisible purple triangle named Hugh? etc . . . Let me guess - You have a book and a lot of salesman.
@@mrflippy2 That is another topic altogether. The point is that Misotheists believe in miracles and claim that they are science.
@@TickedOffPriest My Born Again Christian brother believes in miracles and claims that they are science as well.
If your god is so desperate for people to believe in her and to worship her, which sounds rather needy by the way, she would reveal herself in an unambiguous way. She would not need to rely on some dusty book that has no provenance to convince us of her existence and might. All atheists are waiting for your god or someone else’s god to make this revelation in the here and now. But even believers know this will never happen, because all the revelations that have occurred until now, have occurred in the fevered brains of a handful of people in the distant past. If someone today made the same apocalyptic predictions today that Jesus made most sensible people would dismiss him as a rambling ratbag.
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." - Romans 1:18-23
There is no excuse for denying the existence of God.
Furthermore, in the Bible God is never mentioned as being a she or her. Rather, words like: him, his, he, Father, King, LORD, are used when talking about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, you should be able to spot this in the passage above.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i The bible is self-referential. Quoting passages from the bible is not an indication of veracity. You did not address my point. Your god, should she be so inclined to, would reveal her existence to one and all, rather than cloak herself in smoke and mirrors if she wanted our fealty.
As to gender, an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being would be sexless. Referring to him is just a convention. I wouldn’t get tied up in knots over that.
@@keibro13 Did you see the verse, "20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Sufficient evidence for the existence of God has already been provided. There is and will be no excuse for denying God's existence.
Even if God were to appear to you, you would brush it away with the belief that your were merely hallucinating. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, indeed, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1
No, until you first believe that there is a God and seek him and ask Him to reveal Himself to you, you will continue to turn your face away from any evidence that is given to you.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Those verses were written by people who had no explanation for the world around them. In fact, their entire world view was comparatively small to today. The centre of their world, the middle and near east was a battleground. It was common for people, not only Jews, to attribute the events of their world to the supernatural. Every early civilisation had its heroes and gods. Many passages in the bible are as much political diatribes expressing the view that their god would triumph over others as they are scriptures. They may as well have been talking about football teams. But time marches on and our knowledge of the world and our place in it has grown exponentially. The tribes of the bible were a superstitious and comparatively ignorant people who expressed their knowledge in myths and stories. There is no reason for us to cling to these stories as if they were fact. They are myths and legends. Nobody recorded who said what. That includes Jesus. He wasn’t surrounded by literate people who recorded his words. His words are inventions, hearsay.
what a load of unscientific bollox. Arguments with no scientific basis.
The proof of God is the existence of h"is Creation. \The coded information for every major complex molecule in every form of llfe had to exist at the first instant of its life.
@@danminer5343 That isn't how evidence works.
@@MTBScotland It is easy to show the fraud and/or deception in every sentence used by evolutionists to prm9ote their atheistic religious belief. I have never been able to find even one honest scientific statement used to promote the story of 'evolution'. Never has any theory been invented to explain how "evolution" could be possible.
@@MTBScotland - Nobody has ever found any evidence that shows how evolution could be possible and their is zero evidence showing that evolution has occurred. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
@@danminer5343 dude there is masses of evidence to show evolution. everything from fossil to DNA evidence for speciation and adaptations.
Everyone agrees that life looks like it was designed. Evolution explains how that came about. Simply saying it looks designed is not an argument. We all agree
When you have hydrogen gas in space the hydrogen atoms had to be close enough together for the gravity to bring them together to form a star. According to scientists, this was achieved before the expanding universe had expanded fully.
Now this was first generation stars. However the second generation stars required gravity waves from super novae. How can we look at all those second generation stars and cannot find any super nova remnants near by?
The first stars are short-lived supermassive stars, a hundred or so times the mass of our Sun, known as Population III (or “metal-free”) stars. Eventually Population II and then Population I stars also begin to form from the material from previous rounds of star-making. Larger stars burn out quickly and explode in massive supernova events, their ashes going to form subsequent generations of stars. Large volumes of matter collapse to form galaxies and gravitational attraction pulls galaxies towards each other to form groups, clusters and superclusters.
Our Sun is a late-generation star, incorporating the debris from many generations of earlier stars, and it and the Solar System around it form roughly 4.5 to 5 billion years ago (8.5 to 9 billion years after the Big Bang).
None of these are miracles
How?
@@jelly7310 Exactly!
Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it! All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It didn't matter. He is believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!
Please tell us how you would go about reproducing the Universe and all within it....including life. You apparently are smarter than those that have spent their entire life pondering such questions. Thank you in advance for giving us the answers......
You claim that Darwin was driven by a desire not to believe in God. Now there is an example of something coming from nothing right there
The whole point is to remove God by these people. They don’t like the idea of answering for their iniquities.
@@waynerenee3809 utter nonsense. I have no beef with God. I just want to try to explain what I see around me. There is no contradiction whatsoever with a belief in God. That is just a trope to keep people in the cult
@@mattbrook-lee7732There is no explanation of the information needed. It requires a mind. No ambiguity about it. It’s actually pointless to argue it, and foolish. Nature cannot produce information let alone itself.
@@waynerenee3809 nature produces information and signalling systems without a mind all of the time. Flowers signal to pollinators. Light sensing cells allow a sunflower to track the sun. Termites, ants, and bees build amazing structures. These all require information and signalling systems. Nature does just fine without intelligent minds. The evidence is everywhere
These are 5 impossibilities 😂
This guy thinks he is an expert on neuroscience as well. He really does have a very inflated view of himself
A lot of these facts gave been cherry picked and presented out if context, more propaganda than knowledge
I wish I were an atheist because if I can get myself to believe that a universe can create itself then I could also believe that I'm the god of my own universe and therefore I have no accountability to anyone other than myself. Life would be a lot easier that way!
❤❤❤
These are not miracles but scientific theories based on the available evidence . If new evidence comes up and verified then science will change its mind. The theory of a being that's always been there with no beginning us equally mind boggling and something that neither religion or science will ever know for definite . I don't know what scientific qualifications this speakers got.
@@Mario_Sky_521 yes if there is new verifiable evidence that the theory is wrong. That's what l like about science that is willing to change its mind if new evidence comes along. You can't say the same about religious books just purely that there is no way of verifying stories like a serpent talking to eve in the garden of Eden or lots wife being turned to a pillar of salt.
@@Mario_Sky_521 Yes thats the beauty of science. If new evidence comes along and verified science will change its mind. The theories like of what started the universe or whether it even had a beginning would just be a theory . Theories are different from facts in my opinion as there is not yet enough evidence to prove but there are scientific facts out there.
@@Mario_Sky_521 I disagree otherwise police doing investigations would never find the criminal. I don't mean yourself but some religious people I have talked to can get quite nasty if you question their religion. I am willing to change my mind if anyone can provide evidence about a serpent talking to eve for example but that's the problem with religion . It makes statements about the creation of earth with no evidence to back it up apart from stories in a compiled book.trying to a obtain evidence through scientific investigation and bits of evidence is better than what some religions do and make assumptions about the creation with no evidence to confirm.
🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯🔥🔥🔥
❤
So according to big bang, our universe originated from dark matter that is possible not even extant 😅. The god of atteists is then dark matter 😅
Not even close. You might refrain from commenting about things you know so little about.
@@rickdelatour5355 do you know what comment is on youtube? A free speech bro. Anyways you might find i know more of chemistry and astronomy than you do.
@@PacisMwiza you are free to comment about things you apparently don’t know much about. Just as I am free to point out fallacies. If you know so much please explain how dark matter created the universe? It is important to how the universe looks today, but we don’t yet know how the universe originated.
I’m atheist, I don’t worship dark matter. So that is wrong too.
Is English your second language?
@@rickdelatour5355 English is my third language . Anyways, I agree with you.
Many theists believe in the big bang and many have said it proves to them that God created because it sounds like what Genesis describes.
I have not heard anyone claim that the universe originated from dark matter. As far as I can tell physicists freely admit they can't provide a natural explanation how the universe started. Some physicists are theists and think God started the universe. I think what puzzles people about your post is your use of laughing faces as if you said something deliriously funny. But really it sounds like you might be parroting some wild conspiracy strawman theory of what some theists think atheists might believe.
on the bright side you know the bible is wrong, and there are things that are impossible for your god.
that is a good start.
Please be specific.
@@creationministriesintl things that happen naturally, are not miracles.
so you already know it's impossible for your god to create a universe, where those things occur naturally.
i thought that was obvious.
@@78endriagoGod made natural laws in the Universe 🤦♂️
@@TyrannosaurusRex1997 an imaginary character is not able to make anything in reality.
why have you never learned that?
@@78endriago Please debunk the existence of God. I want to see this.
To believe that Nothing blew up, became alive, as living breathing beings, and now as thinking creatures, questions how Nothing Blew up, became alive as living beings with Minds capable to ponder our own existence, is mind numbing laughable. Atheist are silly people.
That may have made sense in your head, but I recommend proof reading before you hit send
Atheists also believe in square circles.