The Failure of Darwin's Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- In this video, Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. John Ankerberg explore how DNA causes problems for Darwin's theory of evolution.
For articles on Science written by our staff and contributors to ministry, visit our website at: jashow.org/art...
One of my favorite personal examples is when I walked on the beach and found 100 rocks, 20 different kinds, assembled in perfect order (they had numbers painted on them). I first assumed they were the result of an intelligent being, and a secondary assumption is that they were assembled by random natural forces of wind, water, maybe a squirrel (a smart one). I told my friend that the possible combinations for these rocks are 1:10^130, or by accident 1 in 10^130. There are 10^80 molecules in the universe (guestimate), so that's a big number, actually an impossible number. Yet my friend ridiculed my hypothesis of an intelligent being: "Of course, naturalistic forces are a far better hypothesis!" I shrugged my shoulders, thinking about one protein molecule, one of many that would be necessary to manufacture one living cell. Such a molecule with 100 amino acids (20 different kinds) have the same odds as our rocks. Some amino acid chains are 1000 or more; none less than 50. That's for each protein molecule, a rather big miracle fro each molecule. I would not bet my life in a cosmic casino that one molecule would form by itself, let alone one living cell. I would put all my chips on Infinite Intelligence/Power ... ie God.
And you will lose....
@foreveragainokay
Excellent job, well done, thank you.
Evolution...because if everything is a big happy random accident, we can go on sinning and doing whatever we want.
There is zero reason why that statement should make sense.
Not just evolution, but the reason Richard Dawkins can dare to speak about evolution, but not the creation of the Universe, isn't because he's a biologist. He as well as everyone in science knows that ID of the universe can't be explained away, even if Darwinian Evolution (specifically) is true. God could make humans evolve from a LCA but religions say He didn't do that (that doesn't mean evolution didn't happen at all though), but science can't answer who designed the universe, or our solar system so well. And the fact that humankind has not yet been destroyed by a huge asteroid, even though the dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid, or something. Gives me pause for thought. This is not an argument against any particular theory, just saying.
It is a shame that a line has been drawn between God and science when both seek the truth
I agree but would dare to say God is truth and he wants us to figure out his science, while his adversary (who i might add is highly intelligent and perfected deception over several thousand years) wants us to go in the oppositive direction. Evil has nothing to loose and knows his reign is short now. His reqrutes have been deceived into believing and preparing for a battle they can't possibly win. Just sayin'.
For everything that begins to exist, there is a creator behind them.
Every God who exists had a Creator.
Not so. Subatomic particles have been shown to spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum.
But it's patently illogical to state that:
Since something can't possibly come from nothing,
it was obviously created by something that came from nothing.
That is a religious convenience and nothing that has any legitimate scientific merit.
Dr. Stephen Meyer is doing God's work by reinforcing our faith, thank you for your show and Stephen Meyer.
yeah man
Marten Trudeau
And getting nowhere .
Meyer isn't doing God any favors, he's only making religion look foolish. Genuine faith is not in conflict with evolution. Creationism is not just bad science, it's bad Christianity.
How Do you know evolution is the right thing like us your common sense there is no way a dog can turn.I'm to a.penguin I mean that's foolishness 😂😂😂😂😂 Jesus is the only way the truth and the life. Can you proved to me when and animal is turning to another thing other than it kind. Evolution is bad it a religion or will decide you fool.
@@thetruth3574 Creationism is the same as the rest of christianity - false.
He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” - John 6:65
You mock what you do not understand and it is because you have not been given the eyes to see and ears to hear.
HE is trying to give them eyes to hear, they are refusing with their free will - which HE also gave them.
Did Flavius Josephus ever edit the book of John to keep his Roman benefactors happy?
HE will give to anyone who asks Him! It is HIS desire that all BE SAVED by the work of Jesus. :)
David McClure
And yet he never does . Anyone would think he doesn’t exist.
so it's not free choice at all, you have to be enabled by the great enabler.
I can't imagine how hard it must be to live as an atheist. So much rage and tears, with their fingers in their ears, constantly shouting, "No God! No God!" even though in their hearts they know He lives.
Truly a sad waste of an existence.
It's not as bad as you think!
Actually I am much happier since I relegated christianity to the toilet bowl where it belongs.
Cory,
Hahaha,surely lots of lie lies ahead!
@@bradcrampton8920 you may feel happier than you were before. But the fullness of joy and happiness available through the true Jesus is what we are referring to. Until you experience that for yourself you cannot even imagine, much less discuss, how awesome it is. And toilet bowls are awesome as well, so we don't need an outhouse or to dig holes in the yard... But your comment indicates you completely missed the point.
@@davidmcclure8886 Toilet bowls are a step up and I think toilet bowls are the more modern place to dispose of mythologies that are touted as truth. There is no lasting happiness associated with falsehoods, therefor christianity cannot provide happiness. Now you need to imagine why your precious truth could be false.
The biggest stumbling block is that those who follow the scientific view of earth never explain how all those planets and stars came from in the beginning. How did they form out of nothing and just happen to be in order?
I think no matter how much I flap my arms my descendants won't develop flight.
m beginization Very true. What does that have to do with Evolution?
The descendants of dinosaurs developed flight and so did the descendants of arthropods. Merely pretending to be incredulous at this fact doesn't make it go away.
@@thetruth3574 Did you see it evolve or are just assuming like everyone else that was the case?
@@thetruth3574 Hmmm! How did you know this fact please?
@@TheKingcougar Anatomical structures of dinosaurs show that they are the ancestors of birds, , anatomical structures of reptiles show they are the ancestors of both dinosaurs and birds, and the DNA of living reptiles show they have ancestors in common with living birds. We also have transitional fossil specimens of species like Archaeopterix that show characteristics of both dinosaurs and birds. That is more than mere speculation, though an ignoramus may not know the difference.
18:26 The thief and the lock scenario is assuming optimum conditions where the thief spends all of the 24 hours purposefully trying open the lock. What if the thief only tried twice? What if scrambling the code each time destroyed the lock beyond repair?
The thief and lock also ignores the fact that there is an near infinite street with an near infinite number of locked bikes and most of the locked bikes are creating new locked bikes all the time, so if the thief's action destroys the bike it's not the end of the world !
These scenarios are similar to that old debate about that featured Thomas Huxley's chimpanzees' typing forever on a typewriter and coming up with a verse in the bible. Optimal conditions. The problem with such models are they often assume that information is put in and remains in, with no feature that destroys the information and hardware. In real life physical systems decay and can no longer receive information, the locks themselves may stop working. The body is the same.
I remember trying to teach my little boy (then about 4 years old) letters, numbers and images. I was using a white-board and washable-markers and every time we did something on the board, he took great pleasure in erasing it. After about 30 minutes we where left with a just white board.
DonswatchingtheTube, your little 4 year old learnt letters and numbers and images did he not. The white board is not relevant in your argument , it does not need to retain the information it is a conduit only.
You've missed the point. On the contrary, the final condition of the white-board is relevant and more realistic. That's like arguing that a cell came about step-by-step but is irrelevant to the sum of its parts and the information contained in it. While the white-board held the information, the information was predetermined in intelligent minds and directed onto the board. Your argument is replacing the white-board as a place to store information with the human brain.
That still wasn't the point. The point is an element that writes and one that deletes. Not one only writes and retains information, which is not realistic. Also, how the statistics of the video are based on optimal conditions, which are unlikely even given optimal conditions.
Consider point mutations, even when a single nitrogenous base is misplaced in a long DNA molecule, a number of diseases may appear. This fact suggests that functional DNA sequences must be built right at once, so that proteins and enzymes work propperly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation ; consider then when a protein has more than one domain, I wonder what are the odds that highly specific sequences of DNA could be assembled correctly in the first attempt by chance... what is more, a number of enzymes are necessary to perform tasks like adding ATP to amino acids; the correct sequence of nitrogenous bases and amino acids must be assembled to build tRNAs, then there is the complex constitution of Ribosomes, the "machinery" necessary to build proteins. I don't believe that such precise arrangement could be assembled by chance, so that thousands of nitrogenous bases could be arranged in the correct sequence and then endure long enough to "meet" other sequences and buid multi domain proteins. These are a few reasons why I don't believe in the theory of evolution.
Thank You Dr Stephen Meyer and Dr John Ankerberb
If it takes so much effort to under stand how nature works ,definitely there is more effort required to make it work.
Your assertion only applies to "not nature" yet you post it anyway.
Nature expends no effort to do what it does, it has no goals, makes no plans and need not strive to achieve anything-- what it does is better described as "play" than "work."
@@thetruth3574 Then how does it create such engineered, coordinated, integrated and designed systems, organs all bringing about awesome function? Because it's really designed.
@@KrisMayeaux Nature is not engineered, and intelligence is not required to create coordinated systems. Systems all evolve together, they are always interacting, they are not put together out of separate parts, they grow from the same root. Natural processes are the interaction of simple, basic forces that produce patterns of any degree of complexity. There is no goal in mind, no deliberate action to achieve a desired result, there is only a constant flow of cause and effect, ongoing flux and endless, beginningless change. Problem-solving intellect is just one of the processes that develops out of nature, it is a purely biological phenomenon, it is not larger than nature and does not motivate it.
@@thetruth3574 The truth according to whose standards this millennium, for the ten billionth time in the last thousand years!?
This remind me, "How great is the creator of this complex system? It increase me humility and become more stronger in my Deen (way of life) Islam. Worship only the creator, not the creation.
Cosmic Evolution Big bang from nothing made the universe.
Logic says that something can't come from nothing.
There for the big bang never happened.
That means the evolution of planets never happened.
Which means the evolution of single cells never happened.
Because when a star dies out after a few million years it creates a black hole.😍🕵😎😉👍
2:00 Dr. Stephen Meyer is clearly wrong on one key point (not everything) and he should know better. His bio says he's a geophysicist. I was a Senior Exploration Geologist with British Petroleum. He talks about the "Cambrian explosion" and how a myriad of life forms arose abruptly. That is correct. Dr. Meyer then says "you find no fossil evidence of the ancestral forms (in the Upper Precambrian rocks located stratigraphically below the Early Cambrian rocks). That is also correct.
His implication to the novice is that these advanced Cambrian life forms just appeared overnight. Where Dr. Meyer is terribly wrong is his implication. Any non-geoscientists listening to his talk would surely miss this critical point. Allow me to explain in simple terms.
Most of the Upper Precambrian rocks in the world are missing. They are gone. The "gap" between the older Precambrian and younger, overlying Cambrian strata is called the "Great Unconformity." Rocks of this age are missing all over the world. For example, 2 to 2.5 billion years of sedimention are missing between the Cambrian strata in Canada and the underlying Precambrian rocks that make up the Canadian Shield. Therefore all fossils deposited between that mid- to late-Precambrian and Early Cambrian times have been eroded away. If - and that is a big if - there were any intermediate animal microfossils deposited prior to the Cambrian Explosion, they have long since been eroded away and lost to history.
Why are these rocks missing? How did this happen?
The current thinking is that Earth's landmass formed one large supercontinent called Rodinia during the Mezoproterozoic. Rodinia was located along the equator around 1.2 billion years ago. Something happened around 750 million years ago and tectonic forces (presumably) caused Rodinia to break apart. During the Cryogenic Period (720-635 million years ago) the Earth cooled dramatically and sea levels dropped by as much as 600-700 feet. It is thought that ice covered much if not all of the Earth. Ice is one of the most effective agents of erosion. It's likely that ice glaciers several miles thick covered much of the Earth for tens of millions of years. The subsequent massive glacial erosion scoured away any sedimentary rocks with the ancestral fossils of the Cambrian explosion lifeforms. Dr. Stephen Meyer should know this. If Dr. Meyer would have given this talk to the professional geologists working at BP in San Francisco when I did, he would have been humbled and his career advancement severely impacted.
Intelligent Design - in a different form - is highly probable in my opinion. So I am not opposed in principle to Dr. Meyer's lecture, but his implication used to support his argument is completely terribly misleading to non-experts. I welcome you to please do your own research and cross-check my comments. You will find them to be substantially accurate. There are many professional journal papers published that present and discuss the precise arguments that I have shared here. Good luck.
I wish I learned this in biology instead of all the crap that was forced upon me
How did mindless Evolution know we would need food and what kind of food?
It comes down to where does the code come from to design a new life form.
It's coming from a source of intelligence, which implies some sort of creator.
@May Ling where is your evidence that I am wrong? Anyone can come online and say what you said. You have not made a point at all. After all in the end it all boils down to what we believe as individuals.
@May Ling use your fancy vocab which all tells me i have NO evidence which can tell anyone how does DNA self assemble itself in such a way to send information,im also guessing you can't tell me where amino acids or proteins.Answer the question.Where do all the base pairs come from in light of evolution.
For a start, Darwin was a pioneer of evolutionary science, yet those pushing a religious agenda attack him over nitpicking points, even when they acknowledge that Darwin himself expressed certain doubts in his theory as would be expected in such a scientifically primitive age. Test all theories from Hippocrates to Newton to Tesla and you will find deficiencies but it must be remembered that most of these occurred through the primitiveness of the technologies of the day. Don't assume for one minute that because we are now in the 21st Century that our DNA sciences are not still floundering in a scientifically primitive age.
Animals have two kinds of DNA. The one we are most familiar with, nuclear DNA, is passed down in most animals by male and female parents and contains the genetic blueprint for each individual. The genome-made up of DNA-is constructed with four types of molecules arranged in pairs. In humans, there are three billion of these pairs, grouped into about 20,000 genes.
It's fair to say no one has a full understanding of DNA and how evolution really works. If God was trying to construct humans in His own image he certainly took his sweet time cranking up the complexity of his creation. Around 3 billion years.
I'm absolutely in love with the idea of a PhD in the philosophy of science
You're in love with the idea of a "philosophy of science" PhD because it lets a crackpot pass himself off as a scientific authority.
What does a "philosopher of science" do, anyway? Just talk about science without doing any science or discovering anything or explaining how anything works? Anybody can do that.
"Philosophy of science", more like gibberish of science. You only so how gullible you are. Lol
But youre not talking about the probability of just one event. Youre talking about the probability of billions of random events occurring in precisely the correct order at precisely the right time.
Thank you for giving me the strength to reject Darwinism. It makes so much more sense to trust in the evidence for the intelligent agent in the sky.
The evolutionists get very irate when people challenge their religion, especially when it is someone with a Ph.D.
Wrong. Wrong. And more Wrong.
- 98% of scientists accept evolution as fact
- The Pope has declared that Evolution and Abiogenesis is fact, and he's considered infallible by Catholics
-the Major Religions of the world now accept evolution as fact.
game over on arguing against evolution,
And Epicurus disproved god 300 years before Jesus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
So with a single example, Josef Fritzl, we forever lay the myth to rest.
B Miller, how many scientists accept evolution as fact is irrelevant, and hardly to be considered as "proof." But if you believe what they tell you and you have that much faith in them, that is your prerogative. You may place your faith in men; I will continue to place my faith in God.
As for your claim that Epicurus "disproved God," that is a bizarre statement. As skeptics are fond of saying, believers cannot prove God's existence. It stands to reason that God also cannot be disproven. The common excuse skeptics use for being unable to disprove God's existence is that you cannot prove a negative; i.e. you cannot prove that something doesn't exist. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that he cannot disprove God's existence. You certainly can't disprove God with philosophical quotes that rely entirely on arguing against God's character. The Epicurus quote is easy enough for anybody to refute.
Question: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
Answer: He is both willing and able, whenever He chooses. He is not, however, obligated to perform at our command.
Question: "Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent."
Answer: God has given us free will, but with the privilege of free will there are also consequences. God can intervene, but if an individual thinks that means we should have a world free of consequence, they are very mistaken. We live in a fallen world, a world that mocks God, ignores God and blasphemes God, yet some people call Him malevolent when He does not prevent the consequences of our choices, choices which are contrary to God's will and plan for our lives.
Question: "Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
Answer: Honestly, does one really need to ask such a simple question? Evil comes from the hearts of men and is a consequence of our fallen state. Ultimately, evil comes from satan, but we must accept our blame for choosing to follow evil rather than obey God.
Question: "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”Answer: Again, He is both willing and able to intervene. This does not obligate Him to intervene all the time, or whenever we think He should. We call Him God because He is the maker of Heaven and Earth.
The Epicurus quote is not particularly intellectual, though it tries desperately to seem that way. If you want to "disprove God" with philosophical psychobabble you should look elsewhere. You'll still be wasting your time, of course, but your own time is yours to waste.
As for your referencing Josef Fritzl, that point is beyond bizarre. Apparently you believe that Fritzl disproves God's existence. Weird. Just....weird.
GaryWalker, Of course evolution is a religion.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (biologist L. Harrison Matthews)
"biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory"
you really should have stayed in school past 3rd grade. But hey, maybe you'r just a faith healer, and don't ever go to a doctor, 'cause you wouldn't want some quack touching you, right?
Fools. But it's OK.
ZEUS had 10s of thousands of believers in his day.
Know how many there are today?
ZERO.
B Miller, ah, yes, the old standby that evolutionists fall back on, constant insults. How mature. Actually it reveals a lot about your insecurity in your belief system. The fact that it is your immediate reaction to having your beliefs challenged is very revealing. I guess you think Dr. Matthews (who you just quoted above) should have stayed in school past the 3rd grade. Oh, wait...he was a biologist, so he must have. Incidentally, he was also a believer in evolution, but unlike many other believers in that faith he was honest enough to admit that it was a faith.
As for doctors, my father is a doctor. Why you jump to the assumption that I would not go to a doctor since I don't believe in evolution is a logical contortion that I won't pretend to understand, but it's obvious that presumptuousness is one of your flaws.
Not interested in Zeus or how many followers he had. Using that as an excuse to reject God is not particularly wise. If you want to follow men and worship at the altar of man, that is your right. God will allow you to make your own decision. You do still have time to reconsider. Time is getting short, however.
Read the Book of Enoch. It talks about how the Watchers were teaching mankind all the "incredible" knowledge such as astronomy, using and building tools for war, abortion, using male up ... we have today, the evolution is nothing but a deceptive lie created by them to keep people from believing in God. You see their capabilities in archaeological findings from the ancient times as they were ahead of their own time.
Satan's biggest achievement: Not only do mankind mock the idea of God, they even laugh at Satan being real.
"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitionals (links showing that there was at one time an intermediate form of a current species type), fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, Evolution." (Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses over 60 million fossils)
Yawn.
Try a recent quote.
Errrr......who was the intelligent designer? And who designed him/her/it?
The mantra of the the internet expert - "I don't get it, it must be wrong"
An Account
Or god did it.
But it’s not just him it’s many more.
@@chazgirl6186 I think you're referring to the theory of evolution. Well, for a start, that doesn't say that we are monkeys, it says that we are human, but that we evolved from previous primate species. We didn't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. The evidence supporting this is overwhelming, we have the skeletal remains of multiple human likes species going back a few millions years. It was only a few 10s of thousands of years ago that there were several human like species on the planet with us. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. It is a scientific theory supported by vast amounts of data, it's not an ideological position.
OMG Girl
And creationists don’t get it that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Most religious groups and their members accept evolution to be true. Only creationists deny it because it destroys their primitive beliefs.
An Account we have a lot in common with bananas too.
And can you show me all the skeletons with millions of differences between them all?
And can you show me the process actually happening?
His student's reply to his question about giving a computer new function (7.20) is not the only option. It may have been the only answer we knew about at the time he was asking but it's no longer so. What you can give your computer now in order for it to demonstrate new function is parameters, the ability to adapt/vary its own program and objectives. Computer programs can then develop their own functions and strategies that are neither the direct result of programming by us nor the result of any specific intent by us. They can "evolve" function that we haven't envisioned. So the assumption that there is intentional programming behind our creation turns out to be premature.
Given its past failure rate I would suggest that the desire to fill gaps in our knowledge when we "feel" like there's no other answer should be resisted at least a little.
I think the point here is also that the computer's new function, regardless of the mechanism, is a result of your will. It originates with you, the one who programmed or calibrated the computer or put in the parameters, whatever you want to call it. Whatever new function comes out of it, especially if it's the desired function, could not have happened if YOU didn't actually do something to the computer.
First logical function was given by ?
Someone said evolution cannot be the mechanism by which life came to be what it is today, because the odds against a protein forming by chance is 10 to the 164th to 1. To that I say, the odds of a particular arrangement of leaves on the ground being there at a particular moment in time is far lower, and yet, I walk out to my yard and there it is. It didn't take 100 billion years for that to occur and that IS random. While a single mutation may be a random occurrence, nature selects to keep the ones that work, thereby improving the odds greatly that a certain beneficial combination will accumulate in a genome.
If you try to guess a 60 digit number sequence, and each time you fail to guess all 60 correctly and in the right order, you simply are told "wrong" , the odds of you ever guessing all 60 at the same time are one in 10 to the 60th power. That's 10 followed by 60 zeros, to one. . But if every time you get one of the 60 right, you are allowed to keep that one and then try to guess the rest, you will absolutely arrive at the correct answer in no more than 600 tries.
Using the math wrong is a sure sign of either a misunderstanding of science, or an intentional straw-man.
Tim Hallas "the odds against a protein forming by chance is 10 to the 164th to 1"
--- I did not know that. Would you mind working through the math and the assumptions you used to arrive at that rather small number?
@@numbersix9477 : I did exactly that in my statement. The 10 to the 164th to 1 is the total number of possible combinations of a string of digits 164 long.. They proposed that finding the right combination to form a specific protein is like hitting the lottery with a 164 digit number sequence . But in nature, protein formation is not a random draw of 164 digits over and over until by chance the combination comes out. In nature the process is guided by natural selection. Proteins are not randomly assembled by chance. They are copied from the code on the RNA molecule that was put there by the DNA molecule, DNA is constantly evolving through random mutations and sequencing errors during the copying process. Each variation either produces the ability to make beneficial proteins or not beneficial proteins. Nature then selects between then by rewarding beneficial protein formation with survival and reproduction of it's host DNA. The point that is lost by these people is that nature doesn't have to guess all 164 digits right at once, because it is allowed to keep every correctly chosen digit, and guess again on the rest. Regardless of how many are wrong, the right choices will accumulate over time until the sequence that works becomes a permanent addition to the list. You can get a 164 digit number right in no more than 1,640 tries, by testing each one no more than 10 times to arrive at the correct choice, providing you are told which ones are right and you can keep them. You see, in the lottery, the sequence is different every week. In Nature, the sequence of a working protein remains the same, making it much easier to guess..
This argument didn't age well. Computer programs that evolve by making random changes and "natural" selection recommend youtube videos for you to watch, produce google search results, recognize your voice on your phone, beat humans at chess and jeopardy, find you driving directions.
C'mon Dave P: these are not the least bit random and you KNOW this! ALL these Computer processes you listed are following the exact Coded-instructions of their Programmers (human Intelligent Designers). It is the perfect example to use to prove the exact opposite of what you claimed! :) This correlates to the fact that OUR DNA also follows the EXACT instructions of our INCREDIBLY INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, Jesus. And I thank Him and praise Him for loving us that much.
This doesn't attempt to disprove evolution. What this is attempting to disprove is abiogenesis. Your title is causing a lot of unnecessary hostility in the comments between people arguing different subjects as if they are one in the same. Please change the title to something like disproving the darwinian theory of evolutionary origin or something.
It actually does attempt to disprove evolution. And the Darwinian Theory of Evolutionary Origin is the exact same thing only longer.
The “Cambrian Explosion is a misnomer. The world was teeming with a wide variety of aquatic life before then but as it was nearly all soft tissues (no bones or shells back then) the already staggeringly small chance of fossilisation was even smaller then. There was even an entire kingdom based on tri-symmetry that evolved diversified and became extinct BEFORE the Cambrian Explosion.
That argument fell down when we found embryos that were preserved before the Cambrian explosion. If the pre Cambrian life forms existed we'd have found them similarly preserved.
A M Guitar Tuition
Citiation please. Or are you talking bollocks?
The Piltdown Man proves you correct.
klausmkl
What does Piltdown man prove?
Other than it was a hoax put together for fame, exposed by science.
There is also Nebraska man.....an honest mistake, blown out of proportion by the press, corrected by scientists.
And yet both stories are still peddled by creationists as though science failed, where in fact science succeeded.
It also makes sense to me. When life just existed the entire world was open and all possible niches were available. So evolution goes at maximum speed. During a settled system where most niches are already filled evolution goes slower. After something like the KT extinction the evolution of birds and mammals also happened very rapidly.
I mean I am a muslim and so thankful to Allah that i came upon this video. Thanks man .... May Allah Guide you to the Jannah
I have some questions:
The fossil record is a record of death. So, where are people getting the idea that things "evolved" by way of macro evolution?
How can scientists be so sure that evolution is real if it took place over an unseen, or, unobserved period of time?
Where are the transitional fossils in the fossil record?
If there's a common ancestor, why don't we know what it looks like?
Fossilization is a rare phenomenon. Scientists speculate that the number of extinct animal species is about 100,000,000 and only 100,000 have been discovered and identified. That means only 0.001% animal species that ever lives have been discovered. Remember that each species would have had millions and millions of individuals.
matt smith...how do you know that there have been 100,000,000 species gone extinct if the majority of them have never even been discovered with no evidence of fossilization left behind??? ooohhhh its cause the scientists speculated it...therefore it must be so.
Holy Trash oh dear. You are not very bright, are you?
hey matt smith...because you replied with an ad hom... instead of addressing the argument i reported you for harassment and hate speech. I would hope someone at your age would have learned by now to have grown up conversations instead of getting triggered because you dont have a rebuttal. until you learn to control yourself a little better i will no longer respond to your comments after this one. Have a nice day.
@@holytrashify He didn't reply with an ad hominem at all. you don't understand that term.
Belief is the absence of information
Microbyte VAX11/780
If that’s what you believe......
Your lecture is excellent. It is incisive, informative, and persuasive. Indeed, the obstacles confronting the evolution model are staggering. To believe such an idea requires herculean faith in chance. Everyone knows that complex, sophisticated technology is the product of intelligence.
@ Sacred Truth
To understand evolution, you do need to study it. It doesn't require a herculean faith in chance as you put it, but undergraduate level biology would help!
You are correct that technology is the product of intelligence but evolution by natural selection, perhaps surprisingly, requires no intelligence whatsoever. If you have the time to listen to a fascinating lecture on the subject, pitched at a level that an intelligent layman can understand, I recommend Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's Strange Inversion of Reasoning". ua-cam.com/video/nz4HRL-Yzoo/v-deo.html
I do hope that you can find the time for it.
Praise the Lord. ..
God is a lie
" I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.Where is the wise? Where is the. Scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe......
Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearcjable are His judgments and His ways past finding out? For WHO has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? .....for of Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him alone was, is and forever will be Glory, Majesty and Dminion" ...AMEN! 🎶🌸🌷🌺🐦💛
Amen
This verse is on point. Which book or chapter is it ?
@@khalidaser1430
lt is from the Holy Bible 1Corinthians ch. 1 and
Romans ch. 11
Handi Jobe the King of eternity, incorruptible and immortal, invisible, the only God (1 Timothy 1:17)
@@handijobe1076 to bad you can't tell which one...
To blind man all colors are the same, they just dont exist. That's what you are... blind: having eyes, you dont see, having ears, you dont hear. Keep going this way, see where it'l take you...
Whether you agree with Meyer of not, you have to admit it's nice to see people who believe in intelligent design are making reasonable arguments and becoming educated, instead of simply saying: "Because my holy book said so."
Dr. Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" ... awesome book! I only wish I had access to it back in the early 70's. I would have entitled it "Genetic Code for Dummies". The flack I took in high school (and beyond) for not kowtowing to Darwinism...by the way, Darwin's book was The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. The implication was my stance was no more than "Gimme that Old Time Religion." The failure of evolution is not so much natural selection. It is how such complexity of the simplest organism known could come together only by chance to form the birth of life itself.
Dr. Meyers proves it takes FAR less faith to believe in God than to actually believe this complexity could come together by chance. Even with a great deal of time! We absolutely have a Creator to whom we are morally obligated. It is that obligation that gives the evolutionist such impetus to concoct their means of by-pass surgery: "All by chance, no more God. Do whatever I choose." Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. I might add: choose carefully, you may be sitting at a higher stakes table than you realize.
Pretty sad that a functioning adult can't come to the conclusion that if we KNOW that Organic Compounds can READILY ARISE and so therefore the only "missing element" is proteins forming and folding. that THAT is somehow incomprehensibly MORE COMPLICATED to you than:
a. Creating an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being that somehow, despite nothing else ever being capable of doing so, exists outside of Space and Time.
b. Imagining this being created our Universe "just for us" when 99.999% of the universe would kill you instantly if you were there, and over 2/3 of this planet is inhabitable.
Yeah, I just see it totally opposite: but that's me, I'm committed to LOGIC and RATIONALISM. good luck.
I guess when you start out with your conclusion, it's awfully difficult to find fault with the logic.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
I’ve just realized both sides of this argument are pretty much the same. They each say the other is wrong and that they are blindly believing something that isn’t true or has no evidence supporting it. When they link to evidence or give a quote, it’s usually not convincing for the other person or they don’t understand the material well enough for it to mean anything to them. Both sides end up ignoring holes found in their own arguments and become frustrated. Unfortunately, when words fail, they begin hurling insults at each other.
That is why it is important for each person to satisfy themselves with the most reasonable argument and not accept things because a phd or priest said it.
Why didn’t they source any of those papers or claims mentioned at the start of the show?
You need to be more specific than that, in which timestamp exactly are sources lacking?
Jesus "Let me in."
Person "Who is it?"
Jesus "I'm Jesus. I'm here to save you."
Person "Save me from what?"
Jesus "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in!"
InformationIsTheEdge well if I were you my friend I’d open the door, soften your heart and open your ears and eyes. Jesus Loves you and so do I please give him a chance for he cares for everyone. Don’t leave it to late my friend because he is your only hope.
I find the "DNA as proof of evolution" argument fascinating but it has two fundamental flaws. 1. Saying DNA is similar across species has the same problem as the entire macro evolution mechanism conundrum. Yes, DNA might be "similar" but the question of HOW those similarities occur in a way consistent with replication isn't sensical. 2. Further, we have no way to even assess what "similar" looks like because we have nothing to compare it with. There's not, for instance, some other planet we've studied that contains its own unique species and DNA patterning that we can compare Earth to. We're basically looking at the only set of life-filled planets we have access to, looking back in time and drawing conclusions based on what we observe but without mechanism and repicatable results. This is a basic "correlation is not causation" issue. It MIGHT be but we cannot know that. My problem with Darwinism is the atheist slant. Vehement atheist slant.
2 points...
1) DNA is exactly the same across all species and all kingdoms. There are only A, G, C & T nucleotides for all life on earth. And they are ALL the same chiral form.
2) DNA SEQUENCES of the species of this planet map out in comparison with each other to a nested hierarchy (not a simple hierarchy that can be made by grouping things by one or a few characteristics, but is a tree with non-recursive, non-intersecting branches that results by default from descent with modifications).
The degrees of similarity and differences of these sequences is predictable to a high degree of accuracy due to the reliability of the theory of evolution when applied to the mapping.
Any questions?
To make changes in the code, you must have intelligence and a plan. Where did evolution get the intelligence to come up with a plan? How did evolution come up with a need to make changes? In other words, why?
I like your comment, it worth to consider:
So, I believe, all the questions are good ones in your comment. The first sentence is a statement which if it is true, then your questions will result in one type of answers - most probably supporting your intent: evolution theory has great fallacies in it...
Try to answer these same questions if you assume the first sentence (the claim) is not true. For example what happens if "changing the code" may not require having an explicit intelligence (coming from "outside") and plan? Say the intelligence has also evolved (and keep evolving) in that code? If you try this you may find different answers to all these questions - for example evolution may not require an outside reason (a why or a need) as that can just emerge in the process. Possible process that could help this "emerging need" is selection and adaptation among some other things. If then you check, from literature, what evolution theory is than you may find that your proposed claim is negative.
Darwinism comes from the same minds as communism!
Ordo ab Chao
Order out of chaos!
BigBangMyA**
Proofs of Intelligent Design always reminds me of a jingle:
"So you KNOW I am the Lord thy GOD"
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
more things here : www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2011/08/the-wall-o-socialist-bible-quotes/
while stupidity comes from an ignorant mind
@@JR-nh7fc hey, that's communism in the bible. Just goes to show that diametrically opposed viewpoints can be supported with scripture. No wonder 9 out of 10 idiots like it.
Almost everything were taught is to denial the existence of God. But his creation cries out to our creator so why not us?
1 O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
-- Psalms 139
But like, if someone has two daughters they're not gonna be the same. So species can reproduce differently, if one of those differences somehow benefits a species it would make it more likely to reproduce and isn't that just natural selection?
But the systems in place are very complex and can't be simply built piece by piece with a mind behind it.
Many people fail to understand that evolution, i.e. process of evolution, is a fact, but in the same time, this process is totally powerless in creating higher life forms, as required by the theory of evolution. Higher life forms are characterized by novel proteins, organs, molecular machines, and body plans, that were nonexistent in the lower life forms, such as first self-replicating cells. The theory of evolution holds that the above mentioned process was able to repeatedly produce such novelty in a short period of time. Namely, according to the theory, at the beginning of the Cambrian period, in an interval of 20 million years or less, the process of evolution resulted in the explosion of animal diversity with multiple feats of anatomical and physiological novelty. In an evolutionary blink of an eye, most major animal phyla were fully developed. Recently, the “big bang” of bird evolution has been mapped, revealing that almost all of the modern groups of birds evolved in a small window of less than 10 million years. So evolution must have happened extremely fast and produced novelty in a short period of time. Finally, based on 53-million-year-old fossils of whale-like, semi-aquatic mammals, scientists had thought mammals gave rise to whales in a process that took 15 million years. The new find suggests it took just 4 million years. So again, in an evolutionary blink of an eye the evolution process must have produced a lot of novelty to turn a terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic marine mammal.
However, the observation clearly shows the complete powerlessness of this process. For e.g. in the last 300,000 years, the variation part of the evolution process produced more than 100 billion different Homo sapiens genomes. But has this enormous diversity caused humans to start to develop some new, distinct organs, molecular machines, or body plans that will occupy ecological niches humans previously could not occupy, i.e. enable the selection part of the evolution process to act on them? Well, obviously not. After an enormous number of different genomes produced, humans are anatomically, morphologically and physiologically practically identical, without any traces of new structures starting to develop. The same is true for the E.coli long-term evolution experiment, which is the longest running microbial evolution experiment. After more than 67,000 generations of E. coli, which is the equivalent to over one million years of human evolution, not a single, new and distinct structure was created. Most of the changes involved streamlining the genome, deleting genes no longer needed, or reducing protein expression, with one change being the breaking of a repressor switch which caused citrate-uptake pathway to turn on. So, both humans and E.coli have undergone a lot of evolution, but nothing new was created. This clearly shows that the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the validity of the evolution theory. The evolution process is indeed factual the same as other natural processes, be it: fog, thunder, tornadoes, decomposition, wave propagation, erosion, etc. But natural processes, including evolution, are totally powerless in creating new functional things. Many educated people fail to understand the distinction between the evolution process (fact) and the evolution theory (human idea about what the evolution process can and cannot do), which is why they hold irrational beliefs about the enormous creation powers of a mere natural process that is in reality totally powerless.
Are you a PhD also?
If not, shot up! Evolution is not real, it only becomes real with the help of imagination. Without your delusions it is nothing. 😊
A basic understanding in science will do.
The only way you cannot believe in evolution is by not understanding the
subject and science in general. Is to be wholly ignorant of basic science and
mountains of evidence, or in complete denial due to religious bias. When you
try to undermine one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of
modern science you have to come up with a better alternative than an wild
assertion that your “god” is responsible.
Let’s us examine what your alternative towards
those universally agreed interpretation of a staggering amount of empirical
evidence is; “God did it”, no evidence, no nothing.
That is not very impressive. You can’t even
argue that your specific god is in any way more real than all the other made-up
ones, there is nothing special about any of those for they are all man made
irrelevancies. Can’t you see that those two are not even playing in the same
league? I’d argue that you and your kind are the ones in need of imagination
but I’d rather call it delusion.
@@derhafi So, you are using rhetoric to deny the fact that evolution is utterly powerless in creating new functional things. Well, you can keep doing that but simply denying facts doesn't make them go away.
@César Rabbit
Evolution is only a THEORY,!
@@joeyfeliciano9199 Only a Theory, hear hear! The capital letters are surely impressive. You might think that’s an argument but actually it’s a testament for your scientific illiteracy.
Dr. Meyer presented scientific information. Darwin presented speculative philosophies of lifes origins.
Meyer takes potshots at science in an attempt to cast doubts on it, but offers no alternative explanations. Darwin's theory describes how species form after life has already started, it is not a theory of the origin of life.
Darwin may have been incorrect - but you are talking about a guy that sailed on a wooden ship to see what he did.
Dr. Meyer is a guy that writes a book with Darwin's name on it.
In my world, Darwin was a guy that was trying to figure out how God works and Dr. Mayer is a guy takes the name of others in vain.
Visit any science museum you want and not one of they will give you a sure answer to why the cambrian explosion happened - we just don't know.
At the same time, you can't use the fossil record as a tool to prove science wrong - if you believe, all the fossils were planted and are just fake news.
@@thetruth3574 Charles Darwin was a free-mason. They have a secret code. And they do not tell people outside of free masonry what the social engineering goals are. He was calling it the "theory of evolution". He was asked to. His entire first book was "If this" & "if that" - then this & then that. "If" was the main word for the whole original book for the few who have read it. The updated version has all the "ifs" taken out - for the many who have read it.
Darwin was at odds with himself and his theory. He wasn't 100% confident of promoting it. But the Jesuit society and other denominations of the Vatican and free masonry - decided to put it in to the education system.
@@mathewstovell5167 Darwin's theory of evolution had nothing to do with Freemasons, the theory is provable on physical evidence that can be examined by anybody. . You have bought in to an absurd conspiracy theory.
@@thetruth3574 Wrong.
Wow, I didn't know Dennis Quaid was so smart!
IF STEPHEN IS SO RIGHT IN HIS ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION, THEN WHY NOT DEBATE RICHARD DAWKINS ! THEN BOTH CAN EXPLORE AND CHALLENGE EACHOTHERS POSITIONS ON THIS SUBJECT !
There's the problem of one needing to confine himself to truth while the other is at liberty to fabricate any story that "sounds good". Demonstrating that his arguments against evolution are all half truths and lies is more difficult that just spewing those lies.
If you review a fair sample of the comments here, some by purported students of evolutionary biology, you will not that almost all the arguments in favor of Neo Darwinianism are rhetorical, not logical or scientific, e.g., they consist of name calling or arguments with reference to authority. To a layman, the routine refusal to engage in discussion of facts and logic by the Neo Darwinian establishment undermines their credibility.
...because theya re dogmatic religeous idolatars? And it was obvious all the time?))
Excellent comment, Lao. So very true, so true, indeed! Thanks!
If a car or a computer or a robot is here purely by accident and without intelligent desining, then I would consider the possibility of Darwin's evolution.
Why doesn't my broken light bulb evolve
Chrome Bonez yeah, I don’t think that example works how you think it does. Take a basic pc, programme it produce a random arrangement of 26 letters and keep producing them until it gets a “p” in the first position. That’s a 1 in 26 chance, so it won’t take long. A pc with low processing power could easily produce 10 arrangements per second, so it’s get the first letter right in around 2.5 seconds. Then lock in that first letter and keep producing random strings until the second letter is an “s”. That’s another 2.5 seconds. And on it goes. 26 x 2.5 = 65. So in its over a minute, that 26 letter word has been spelt by a mindless process. And that is exactly how evolution works; it’s not constantly starting from scratch. It effectively saves its progress and builds from there (that’s an analogy, not to be taken literally).
"Umm, NOOOOO" - great comment, thanks for sharing
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything really, it's the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that's saying that tiny incremental changes add up to make large changes. This is a scientific fact, whether you like it or not, whether you understand it or not, whether it contradicts your religion or not, whether it frightens you or not. It is a fact. The example often used is the development of the eye. Surely, to be of any use, an eye must be fully formed, but how could an eye just appear due to genetic mutation? Well, it didn't. It developed incrementally. Imagine a creature with no vision at all, like a worm for example. Due to a random genetic mutation, a worm develops a cell which can detect differences in the amount of light. This worm has an advantage above other worms, because it can "see" when a predator is looming over it, for example. The advantage means this genetic mutation gets passed on to more worms, and becomes more and more prevalent. Another mutation occurs which means the worm can not only detect differences in the amount of light, but also the direction that the light is coming from. This worm has a new advantage, in that it can use the direction of light to navigate, for example, which may allow it to forage further away and get fresher food. And so on and so on, over vast amounts of time, tiny incremental changes add up to make big changes. There are creatures that live today which effectively have partly-developed eyes. Look it up. Also, "your" means your. "you're" means you are.
So you meant "your saying" as in a saying that I own? is that what you meant? Doubtful, because a saying is a phrase or a piece of colloquialism, which I didn't write. You can write "NONE" in upper case, underlined, in bold, in whatever font you choose. It's still wrong. That you are unaware that there are many tests to show evolution works, and experiments that can be carried out, is irrelevant to their truth. Start simple, with selected breeding, which you can do yourself. Go to a pet shop, and buy a bunch of rabbits. Choose the one you think is cutest. Why is it cutest? Perhaps you like the shape of it's ears. So, keep breeding your rabbits, and every time you see one with ears the shape you like, keep it. Every time one has ears that you don't like, set it free. Keep doing this and you will start to notice that more and more rabbits are born with ears shaped how you like. The shape of rabbits ears is genetically driven. Random mutations cause rabbits to have marginally different shaped ears. By only breeding the ones with ears that you like, you have acted as a force to favour the genes for those ears. You have done the job that natural selection does in nature. You have just demonstrated that evolution theory works, is evidenced, and is a fact.
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts (zeros) after it. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. If the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." (British Mathematician, Sir Frederick Hoyle-a former believer in the theory of evolution)
The likelihood of life developing from non-living matter is 100% sine that is what happened on earth over 3.8 billion years ago. It has almost certainly happened on other planets and is even happening now on some of them. Life started out very simply, little more complex than the non-living chemistry from which it evolved.
It's so ironic that creationists use science to disprove evolution. Not only are they using information that scientists discovered, but scientists are the very people who discovered evolution and the scientific community sees evolution as a fact.
TOM YOU CAN NOT PROVE EVOTARDISM.
Love your work Sir
Why haven't creationists submitted scientific papers for peer review and claimed their Nobel prizes?
It really is the same as South Korea or communism, where you cannot question the authority.
Anyone can submit a paper. As long as the science is good, it'll win out.
@@andrewoliver8930 not true, big bang, atheism and evolution and gravity are all no goes.
@@MrTruth111 write the paper, show the evidence. Claim your prize.
They have. But evolutionist refuse to publish their works.
The "Cambrian explosion" was spectacular, but it did not appear in a vacuum. Traces of previous life go back billions of years.
Excellent reply. Some one has done their homework here.
Not much of an explosion then, is it? This comment is grasping at straws.....
Angelitus Alag
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory it’s vaguely an hypothesis.
Angelitus Alag
There is no design . You would need to explain all the “bad design” or the dysteleological argument against intelligent design .
For example :
the route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals; in the case of the giraffe, this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.
In humans the existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
The human appendix is a vestigial organ with no known purpose (suggested purposes are either unproven or incidental/non-essential) and no deleterious effects come from its removal.However appendicitis, an infection of this organ, is a certain death without medical intervention.
Almost all mammals produce the Vitamin C they require. Humans have the gene to produce Vitamin C but there is a single bit error in the gene that renders it useless.The only other mammals that have this error are the members of the primate sub-order Haplorhini, Tarsiers , New World Monkeys ( Platyrrhini) and Old World Monkeys (Catarrhini) including the family Homindae( humans and apes). You have to wonder why a creator would “create” a faulty gene in both humans and apes and leave it there .
We also share ERV markers with chimpanzees .
ERV markers are non coding sequences of DNA inserted into the genome of host organisms by viruses. These markers are inserted at random and are used by the virus to take over the cell and produce more viruses. Humans and chimps share 14 such ERV markers that are in the exact same location in both genomes and have the same content. The ONLY feasible way for this to happen is for our species to have a common ancestor that also had these 14 ERV markers. The odds of this occurring by chance are billions to one.
These are all examples for evolution and not intelligent design.
Angelitus Alag
Not to my certain knowledge. Are you ?
150 species of kangaroo hopped all the way to Australia from Mt Ararat from the ark? to the only country on earth with kangaroo fossils? they only went to Australia and no other country? yet not one species of elephant, deer, mouse, rat, camel, lions etc came to Australia?? the same goes for the lemurs of Madagascar and the flightless birds of new Zealand. Where were the pygmies (of which there are 4 races of) on the ark? if you cant answer this with the bible then you have to accept evolution or know you are lying to yourself. You're using technology that's evolved in your own live times, cars, phones, tv's, communication, travel, medicine, astronomy etc etc! The christian church has evolved from one teaching into 45.000 sects that all slightly differ from each other enough to not be able to return back into there original form....sound familiar? just like evolution?
Evolution is science Fiction ,...
Pools Spas Creationism is a mental disease.
Pools Spas, and your evidence is?
Fiction doesn't provide reproducible tests. Neither does religion. It's just whatever you chose to believe.
When I was studying science many years ago the available information made the Darwin-theory much more plausible.
So I bought in . But Darwin’s theory relied on the ultimate wedding of biology with chemistry.in some kind of random act.
It the cell is extremely simple a catalyst wedding the two is plausible
However
Objectively
Micro biology has moved the biology further from the chemistry.as this simple cell becomes more and more complex.
The mathematics of the probability of randomness becomes more difficult to believe than an intentional act ..
Why is it harder to believe in the interaction between probability and time than the supernatural?
In other words, given that the chemistry of life is not an exception to any scientific rule why wouldn't it happen on a planet that COULD support life given enough time?
13.8 billion years is a very long time and with there being billions of galaxies (who knows how many stars and planets), it had to happen somewhere.
because it is nonsense, simple as that. it isnt even about time, you could have eternity and it still doesnt work and could never work. you people sound like someone who never even went to any kind of school at all.
Jane: Tell you what. If you should ever come down with a disease that is resistant to one or more medications, tell the doctor you don't believe in evolution; and die a martyr to the cause of intelligent design. If you aren't interested in that level of commitment, then don't eat any cereal grains, bananas, apples or own a dog, cat or horse, While you are at it, you'll need to stop commenting on how much people's children look like them. How they have their mother's eyes or their father's noses.
+Hop On pop, asks _"The mathematics of the probability of randomness becomes more difficult to believe than an intentional act.."_
It's more difficult to believe than the existence of a magic sky-wizard with unlimited power and infinite intelligence?
This is something I don't think I will ever understand, why do you have a problem with the concept of the universe just existing but don't have a problem with the concept of god just existing? We have demonstrable evidence for the existence of the universe but we have no good evidence for the existence of god… but you believe in god more than the universe. It escapes my comprehension.
You don't know what you're talking about. All forms, both simple and complex are the result of chemistry. Molecules are held together with electromagnetic bonds that allow them to assemble and reassemble in myriad ways depending on the forces acting upon them. Life is not essentially different from non-life, it is made of the same stuff, it contains no 'magic" and requires no supernatural help to do what it does.
Great explanation about the function of dna.
futsinen to bad it’s wrong!
Mike Taylor rebuttal it then or debate him?
kylethedalek dna is simply a longchain complex molecule that reacts to eventually create proteins. It doesnt actually code for anything it simply reacts.
DNA is a repeating pattern, if you changed 1 string of DNA nothing would happen because all the other DNA strands have not been altered, code is different, if you changed one line of code the whole program would be effected, DNA doesn’t do that, so you can’t call it a code!
Mike Taylor so a guy with a PhD on this subject is wrong on this?
I also know others who have drawn comparisons to these two subjects.
And I think he was comparing it more than anything not saying they are identical.
kylethedalek he doesn’t have a PhD or degree on this subject, check out his credentials, science can only test explanations against the natural world, he has no way to test this, until he does test it, he’s just making up stuff !
And we don't have to invent a "creator god" to explain everything we see--or, indeed, to explain that which is mysterious to us. The mind cannot finally understand the Great Mystery. That is not the function of mind. We don't know what a single thing really "is", anyway. The mind is merely an instrument with which to navigate in the midst of our psychophysical "world" circumstance. No amount of mere knowledge will make us Happy. Wisdom is much more important than knowledge. Wisdom is the Truth of Happiness. Any happiness you gain you will lose. Better to simply practice Happiness.
Good point. You'll create bugs before information.
Does evolution stop because of one bad apple? How many bad apples would it take to stop the production of apples
@@ExtantFrodo2It's more like the other way around. If you had to make an apple from thousands and thousands of DNA molecules, how many bad apples would it take?
@@henrykile Why do you imagine it's that way Kile? Are you really forgetting that apples evolved from their predecessors and those from theirs? Just look at the stuff on your grocers' produce shelf. All of which if you look at what it was before the artificial selection you'd see stuff you'd throw away as garbage. How many bad apples?
@@ExtantFrodo2 write a coherent sentence
@@henrykile Just learn to read. Mocking people whenever your argument fails is just sad. You can do better.
Quoting doi:10.1017/S000708741100032X
In the Origin, Darwin used a specific theological view of God’s relationship to natural
laws in order to argue for evolution and against special creation. An intimation of this
view appeared in a passage Darwin chose from William Whewell’s Bridgewater reatise
as an epigraph for the Origin:
But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this - we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws. More directly, Darwin wrote near the finale of the Origin, Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.
(...)
Just six months after the debut of the Origin, Darwin wrestled with the relationship between God and evolution in a letter to Asa Gray, writing that he believed in divinely designed laws with the details left to chance. ‘Not that this notion at all satisfies me’, Darwin immediately added. ‘I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton’.
Religious ideas do not enter into evolutionary theory in any way.
It's only 28 pages, why not read it? Besides... religion does not mean it's incompatible with evolution (in any form, or any of the theoretical models).
Phat Kat "religion does not mean it's incompatible with evolution"
There are an lot of people who would disagree with that.
If that was true then the religious writings should be modified to include what we know about life, the universe and everything and remove all the erroneous parts.
If you are willing to twist the meaning of the words in religious texts to fit into what science has worked out then why not just stick with science.
There are at least 4200 known religions, many of which support 'evolution', regardless of the theory's model.
they doooooo, and how so. evolution was a religious idea long before judaism anyway. investigate a little or is that too much for you
Darwinism has as its main aim to place man first and God second, based upon theoretical assumptions and hype.I am pleased that Darwin's theory remains a theory as proven by fact.God made man in his image ,the earth and all that is within and upon.Nothing He created,the universe and all therein,was left to chance.Everything in His creation is perfect.The truth is beautiful. Thank you both for a very enlightening program.
Can anybody tell me what music that is at 24:37?
in other words mutations are not going to make anything better but worse which pretty much blasts the whole idea of evolution
It doesn't. Mutations that are not suitable die out. Only better ones survive. Sometimes whole species die out. That is the fact.
mutations are rare
@@dop3matt3r_9But the time is long.
The internet is indeed the worst possible form of communication apart from all other forms that we have tried in the past.
- Appropriation of what Churchill said in 1947 about what other people said about governments back in the day.
Great word. Thank you.
Why are their still using drawins information in the textbooks?
Evolution is accepted by every scientific institution in the world, that's why it belongs in school textbooks. Creationism has been exposed as a hoax and teachers do not want it in their classrooms.
Why doesn't Ankerberg ask Stephen Meyer the opposite question: Why doesn't any of the animals from the Cambrian look anything like animals alive today?
Today we have nothing like Anomalocaris, Hallucigenia or Opabinia.
In the Cambrian fauna there are no Bony or Cartilaginous Fish.
Specified complexity is impossible to tell from non-specified. In which of the following sequences of letters is the complexity specified, and in which are they not? No one could tell without testing using e.g. Google.
Jeg elsker dig; Ma to induat; Asavakitt; Miluju te; Nakupenda; Serandura ki; Salanias ka-seram; Szeretlek; Rakastan sinua; Kocham cie; Ke a go rata; Mam nong-a fo.
Because if Ankerberg gets an answer to that question, his ability to earn a living in his chosen profession vanishes immediately.
@May Ling
Hahaha i remember you! The scififangirl who really love evolution bullshit!
@May Ling history of science is exactly what is needed for viewing historical scientific data. No one can do repeatable experiments to prove either long evolution or short Creation. We must observe data as it is and extrapolate how it got that way
May Ling why. It debate him then?
He has responded to his critics. But apparently you know more than what the critics have said?
You said you had a part in experiments?
So has members of my family.
And is this the experiments that showed it took someone else to change DNA? It couldn’t do it in its own?
And what about the other evolution critics? These a few out there and not all of them get challenged or get a rebuttal ?
@May Ling These people are looking for confirmation (of their bias). Don't think for one second that they care about the truth!
Any one who actually studied DNA and still believes in evolution is just not being intellectually honest...
jowest17 the ones who you learnt about DNA are the dishonest ones. They teach their “science” to you not with reason, but with the bible dogmas behind it all. Find proper teachers who teaches based on evidence provided by nature.
Romero Mascarenhas - I think you're the one ignorant about DNA. The DNA that carries the genetic code in virtually all life is B-DNA. This form only has nucleotides with D sugars AND right handed chirality. Only one randomly generated nucleotide base in every four will work. A single L sugar or left handed nucleotide in any gene renders the whole gene useless because it's information cannot be read by the cell and used to create a viable protein. Even a small gene is generally at least 1000 nucleotides long, and to be biologically active in the cell its nucleotides must have 100% D sugars and right handed chirality. When DNA is replicated by enzymes in a living cell they only use these kinds of nucleotides. But if DNA were to form by random chance in some molecular soup, it would almost inevitably have nucleotides with a mix of D and L sugars and right and left chirality. In fact, the probability of such a gene forming with only the correct nucleotides is 1 in 10 to the 100th power. That may not seem like a huge number, but actually it's many times larger than the estimated number of atoms in the whole universe - which is roughly 10 to the 60th power. Do the math yourself, or if you don't understand probability find someone who can explain it to you. And to make matters worse B-DNA is very stable and it has never been observed to unwind and copy itself - that's the job of an enzyme called DNA polymerase. So even if you got a usable gene by random chance every hundred billion years, it would never get replicated unless a molecule of DNA polymerase showed up in exactly the same place before the gene got destroyed through oxidation. So you can speculate that perhaps a DNA fairy swooped in and got around all these obstacles, but the sciences of biochemistry and mathematical logic say it's impossible in the universe as we know it even in billions and billions of years. DNA is amazing. You should try to learn something about it before you go around parroting the propaganda the evolutionists spout.
ebertmiriam Sir, please find someone outside your church to discuss the semi-truths you wrote.
I can only understand this denial of evidence this way: your church leaders say this is the way you must interpret the bible. You’re just obeying their command. Best Regards.
Romero Mascarenhas - And what evidence do you have for your accusation? None, because my facts are from Wikipedia. You must be truly ignorant about biochemistry and mathematical probability if you think you can ignore generally accepted facts about B-DNA, it's chirality and D sugars, DNA polymerase, etc and blame my arguments on some church that exists only in your imagination. I suspect there are more atheists than Christians that accept the facts I gave.
I can see how your approach is probably very useful to you though. Whenever you're confronted with arguments you're too ignorant to refute, you can just scream "It's the church's fault!" "I can't find my car keys - the church has hidden them!" Maybe it's time for you to get a life. Or at least try refuting logic with logic instead of your fantasies. Good grief!
R M Damn, he called your bluff. What an absolute savage. You should come to these comment sections more prepared to handle intellectual debates.
wow, what a dishonest use of nomenclature... and particularly for anyone calling themselves a scientist.
"inside cells, there are _literally_ tiny machines." uuh, no one has any machinery in their cells.
just a few minutes in and this discussion is already saturated with a shameless overselling of obfuscation
and their appeal to an authority in _software design_ is just embarassing.
the appearance of design does not unequivocally indicate design.
emergent systems are void of design and possess a complexity through completely natural means.
examples being: crystals/snowflakes, patterned ground, termite colonies and the human language.
So refreshing to hear the truth in Science. Let's snow ball this thing and pressure our Politicians to accept this truth and have it put in our School's, Colleges and Universities.
We the people can do it. Thankyou so much
The “Cambrian Explosion” is another misnomer. Prior to and for a very long time after that epoch, all of the life on earth existed in the oceans. Those life forms were very primitive and were all soft bodies creatures without hard exoskeletons or anything even resembling bones. So when they died they decomposed and there was nothing to fossilize! The “Cambrian Explosion” was simply the emergence of those life forms with a hard outer shell. Evolution progressed to the point where living organisms had the ability to take components in their environment and use them to make protective shells thus making them more able to survive against other organisms that wanted to eat them. These “shells” are what “all of a sudden” appeared in the fossile record, and making it seems like life “came out of nowhere “. These organisms were pretty successful, and divergent evolution saw that many more variations were to come. Calling this an “Explosion”, like “where did they come from” is easier when you don’t understand the whole story. Real scientists that spend their lives studying these things are the ones people should be listening to. Would you ask a mechanic how to fix your car or would you ask the guy who sells tacos how to change your alternator? Why ask a person who has dedicated their life to proving the existence of God about anything other than God? Evolutionary Biologists are not trying to disprove God. They are only interested in telling the true story of how life in the Universe has come to be. No agenda, no coverups and no lies. “ The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.” Translation: When you want to know about Science talk to a Nerd, not the guy who is trying to make his book conform to reality.Take a College Level course of Evolution and really learn about this stuff before you make a decision on what you believe. Don’t just listen to a person who clearly has an agenda and educate yourself and you’ll see that there is waaay more information out there than what’s in a video like this.
TLDR: Evolution is always gradual (except it isn't), therefore when it happens fast, it isn't evolution...therefore it never happens at all.
Stefan Travis face it, you’re an animal. Don’t be so arrogant.
NICE TRY STEFAN, BUT DARWINIAN AND PUNCTUATED EVOLUTION FOLLOWING AN EXTINCTION EVENT ARE DIFFERENT. EVOLUTION PROGRESSES PRETTY FAST FOLLOWING A GLOBAL EVENT. ENTIRE AGES EMERGE FOLLOWING AN EXTINCTION I.E., THE AGE OF MAMMALS FOLLOWS THE AGE OF REPTILES AND DINOSAURS FOLLOWING AN ASTEROID IMPACT 65 - MILLION YEARS AGO.
@@stephenfaust3179 How?
Evolution never happens faster than organisms can reproduce. It may take millions of generations to make significant changes or it may take only a few hundred, depending on the circumstances. Don't pretend that is hard to believe.
@@thetruth3574 prove it... Ya can't. Oh I'll wait...
At the time of the Cambrian explosion the ecosystem was empty of large life forms. When you have a situation were there is no competition for higher roles in the food web evolution can occur at a faster rate. In a developed ecosystem an evolving life form will have to compete with the animal that already occupies that niche. Evolutionary "explosions" usually occur after mass extinctions so it is a similar story with the Cambrian.
It would still take TIME, and we should see such transitions in the fossil record, but we don't.
bob - Actually there is such transition. Dickinsonia predates the Cambrian and is estimated to have reached up to 3 feet in width. The cambrian explosion wasn't the completely sudden and magical appearance of larger life forms that the ID folks make it out to be.
What about the theory of gravity because it's called a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven as a law
Its the law of gravity and the theory of evolution get it right
I am still waiting to hear the creatard explanation for endogenous retroviruses, pseudo genes, chromosome 2 in humans, cytochrome c and b, atavisms, homologous structures, divergence, nested Hierarchs and classification, fossil records, continental distribution, endemism, ring species, observed speciation and avoids simulation.
Happily Secular but you still have to admit that it’s an awful big chance of everything falling into place to get to the next level and again be voided of all transitional species.
Quite a bit of a problem so Darwin concluded. And only one species in millions became self aware is another issue that I have difficulty getting a handle on. I would think that an intelligent reptilian species would have emerged in this world 🌍
What fossils?
Oh you mean all those scam ones, like whales with made up parts?
If evolution were true we should have no issue finding lots of missing link fossils. Instead we find things that keep turning up to not be what was initially claimed, and not very many of them either.
gamebro listen to this person. He is intelligent enough to know what is what
HELL WITH IT!! B. L. A. What is this “everything falling into place” that you’re talking about?
Also all species are transitional and evolution doesn’t mean every living thing will get smarter. You are not even remotely qualified to say who knows what they’re talking about.
gamebro Well dome dodging all my other questions. The “missing link” is a creatard myth derived from grasping at straws. Whenever a “missing link” is found creatards will simply say “where’s the missing link between that and another fossil?
Evolution is tested in labs and used for medicine on a daily basis. We’ve lived up to the burden of proof so now it’s your turn.
The Blood of the Lamb! Glory to God in the Highest!
Yeah praise the man that got tortured and killed for me in a blood sacrifice for humaniy they should have lit him on fire too just to insure my debt is paid in full
the god of carnage was not satisfied with the death of his son, he had to torture him to death in order to make it right. Sounds like love to me - not.
If I was this confused about what evolution and DNA is I would be a creationist too.
A.Plosky - if I was as confused as you about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and Creation, I might be a faithful-evolutionist-Believer too.
EVOLUTION
An entire page of dots (points of evidence) that all point towards the title (EVOLUTION)
CREATION
Taking the evolution page, selecting specific dots, and drawing your own design.
One has vast amounts of information to back it up, and the other draws conclusions from the vast amounts of information the other has to back it up.
Keith Harvey most of your so-called "evidence" for evolution is either an assumption some weird scientist came up with based off of little to no evidence or it could possibly be a lie as scientist have been caught in the past lying about evolution to make it seem more believable or it can be explained by the Bible
and all this happened by random events magically appearing out of nowhere by accident, ya makes sense.
are you referring to the garden of eden?
They claim the CAmbrian explosion for evidence of an all powerful all knowing creator. If you look at the creatures that appeared in the Cambrian explosion you wil see they are now all extinct, some designer.
Of course their extinct, we all face extinction.
The profoundity of these thoughts are so amazing that deserves some deep reflections. A starting point for getting a more deep comprenhension is to unchain us from the inflexible rails of the lines of evidence of evolution and to take into account the data that we leave outside from these rails.
What are you people afraid of you could be right or you could be wrong keep your options open
say you have a thousand thieves natural selection will chose the one of the thousand who had finnally got the code right, (big polutaions)
Did the Bee evolved before the Nectar Flower, or did the Flower evolve first! Neither can live without the other!
Coevolution.
@@chimpanzeethat3802 Idioticy and unproved religeon. Animal evolves for surroundings... who made surroundings? And why it evolves? To survive? Why it want's to survive, no animal understand this. Who programmed them to survive? Aieeieeah?
ua-cam.com/video/Ji9qSuQapFY/v-deo.html
Evolution is not a religion because it doesn't meet any of the criteria necessary to be classed as a religion.
It doesn't involve the worship of a supernatural deity, it doesn't say anything about the supernatural at all, it doesn't say anything about the afterlife or promise that some semblance of self continues to exist after the death of the physical body, it doesn't say anything about the universe or its purpose, it has no doctrine or holy texts, there's no places where people gather to worship, and it is all based on evidence rather than faith.
It's also directly observed, new genera and species have evolved in our lifetimes.
@@garywalker447 "Plants first evolved to spread pollen by the wind" - Proof?
"The insects came along" - Proof?
"they flew from plant to plant they spread the pollen better than the wind" - Do they do same things today, no? In Iceland, for example? Will this work there, or was it that successfull? May be it's time to stop spreading myths and mythology?
"Some plants adapted" - Plants die instead of adapting, any person threating plants will tell you exactly how it is. If something is wrong - they DIE.
"by making flowers with nectar" - They adapted to make nectar... from nothing, BAM - and they make nectar. How great that plants KNEW that nectar will attract bees. Do they still have that mind? Evolution has mind too?
"because this used less energy than generating all the pollen that would be needed to do the job by wind." - Because, you know, plants can COUNT what will take less time and energy, wind or insects, so they planned it all along.
Ps: PAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!!))) This is MYTHOLOGY, my friend, are you INSANE? Are these processes still happening today? What is wrong with all of you? Can scientists make these events happen faster in some labolatory sow we can SEE already how it works? No?
Why you started running around commentary section, looking for phychological support of those who say same as you? To comfort yourself? Can't stand truth? Relax, i know how it all goes))
@@chimpanzeethat3802 "because it doesn't meet any of the criteria necessary" - That's exactly the point, it is not a religeon formally, but factually it is BECAUSE it have ALL needed criteria. Especially way of threating "unbelievers" and critics.
"It doesn't involve the worship of a supernatural" - Id does involve. And you don't have to worship supernatural, it is not necessary to be a worshipper. Human power (knowledge, inventions, wishes and wills), scientists, space/cosmos/universe (from big "U"). It is worship.
And they way you act on unbelievers "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION AUTHORITY OF HOAWKING! HE IS SMARTER THAN YOU BY DEFINITION!". You basically running around saying: "Your loving God never created anything, my gawd - space, created everything!".
"it doesn't say anything about the afterlife" - You do. You say for sure on 100% (while you cannot know this, therefore you believe in it) that nothing will be in there, only "peace" (idea of your religeon to be in statement when nothing must take you out of your "free" sinning and not to loose discomfort from it, because it was invented purposely against christianity), therefore you can do whatever sin you want, even if it feels bad - this is just social cinstruct, enjoy evil.
"or promise" - You do. "Everything 100% will be fine, whatever you do - NO cnsequences, 100% surely surely". "Don't worry - there is 100% no God", while you cannot know this, cannot debunk God, therefore - you believe in it, and decieve people into sin and hatred and loving yourself.
"it doesn't say anything about the universe or its purpose" - All what you say are NOT criteria of religeon, dummy)) But you do say about purpose, it's just differs, and actually cntradicts itself.
"it has no doctrine or holy texts" - Oh no, you do have)))) And martyrs, and "apostles", and "prophets")) Yeas you do, OH YEAS you do))
"there's no places where people gather to worship" - You do))) Universities, and your gathering. All of it is worship of "temple of sciences", wich you called them YOURSELF.
" and it is all based on evidence rather than faith" - You have 0 evidences, you don't know what started life and existence, but you SURE in your theories - therefore it is FAITH.
Congratulations, you are not officially a pagan space worshipper, people worshipped moon and sun, you worship "endless unknows UUUniverse" that create life. No Biblical Godm but space-god for you, there were wind-god, sun-god, now space/cosmos-god.
"It's also directly observed" - Yeas, evolution and Big Bang are directly observed, thank you. For that i might call mental hospital, if you sure that they are observed, means you've got NUTS with your science-phantasies.
"new genera and species have evolved in our lifetimes" - Oh, okay. What is it? You mean SELECTION that people do on purpose?)) Or some bacteria?))) HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! Bacteria is not enough, boy)) They can change may be, it means NOTHING for evilution, it is just way bacterias are, by God.
What a funny religeon based on REINTERPRETATION of scientific data you have))
Regarding DNA, Darwin had no understand of DNA, of how it work. However, his main hypothesis that all living being share common ancestry and that diversification happen due to natural selection does not contradict DNA. His theory is still useful.
Its like...Newton vs Einstein. Newton's law n theory of gravity as well as law of motion is wrong since it does not include speed of light, unlike Einstein's. However, it work well enough for an object not traveling near speed of light nor near black hole.
Its like...a house. A good enough home but with no kitchen.
Now that you set up enough money for your dream kitchen, do you:
a. Remodel the house to instal your dream kitchen
or
b. Destroy the house and build it from scratch with your dream kitchen included in the design.
Which one is it?
Darwin's specious theory's acolytes have no explanation about how the wondrous DNA code came into being.
DNA came from RNA and RNA is self-replicating.
All the doubts raised about evolution raised in this video have been addressed and answered. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and doubts raised about the processes of evolution typically arise from simple misunderstanding and motivated reasoning based upon religious belief.
Fortunately this drivel about trying to make the bible real will someday arrive at the ash heap of bad ideas but I think it is going to take quite a while.
Well done some sound reasoning for a change.
Evolution of life over time is like eating your soup from the floorboard of someone else's farm truck. You will have to just keep on eating with no regard to origin at all.
Proverbs 21:30 - There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.
+kevin raju Lord is for slaves. Human are lords for them selves.
what are you? A brainwashed alien??
kevin raju Proverbs - There's no wisdom by reading a book of lies, there's wisdom by reading scientific books...
Show me evidence that your god is real and is worthy of worship.
You are following falsehoods. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matthew 24
I am 64 years old and have been saying this since grammar school ... ain’t enough time in heaven ..