Let's save time (and let Joel keep whatever hair he still has left, and not tear it out in frustration) and cut to the chase. YEC hate to explain things, they're used to dealing with people who don't need or want things explained, and they only offer an explanation when they are forced to. And , inevitably it's ALWAYS wrong.
People that believe in common ancestry evolution will never provide any evidence aside from connecting species with lines on paper. There is never an account of mutation sequences in studies or observation, thats why they cannot explain the ddx11L2 gene located inside the supposed fusion site of human chromosome 2. So they wash their brains with 'tiny incremental changes over incomprehensible lengths of time' and evade critical thought. Even if you demonstrated common descent and extreme speciation that the experts suggest happened, it would never prove thats what happened in the past. And yet evos claim that Creationism is unfalsifiable, what would falsify universal common ancestry?
I get this impression from every YEC videos that i see. "There is this thing that is really complex and we dont have a explanation for why they do this thing so it "MUST" of been created by the creator"
I hate to be repetitive; time to show this calculation again, to illustrate the issue in a general sense. There are anywhere from 1 to 8 million animal species (both described and not found yet) Using the low number of 1 million, for us to have the animals we have right now, would have required somewhere between 200-300 unique species a year, every year without fail, for the thousands of years between The Flood and present day.
Extinction vs Speciation Cool, where are the emergent new species currently developing venoms, feathers, repurposing their appendages? Where can we see these developments in real time? Migration will ALWAYS work against extreme speciation, and aside from limited variations and Migration, there is extinction.
"Species" is just a category that HUMANS create for the purpose of cataloging life. There are many different species of the same "kind" that are CAPABLE of interbreeding (doesn't mean that they necessarily do). What we call different "species" CAN emerge from the same parent kind through selective pressures. But they are still just variations of the SAME KIND of animal, with traits that are ALREADY PRESENT in the genome being selected for. It is NOT a process whereby frogs can turn into dogs, though. But evolutionists are fond of pointing to these types of selective events and saying "SEE, SEE! EVOLUTION HAPPENS!" No, just, no. SMH
@26:00 Jackson Wheat and I will be devoting a whole chapter in Vol 2 of Rocks Were There to a detailed breakdown of the murky aspects of the Ark Encounter kind list.
How about a detailed breakdown of any mutation sequences that lead to new features and characteristics, new body plans, during speciation? We have AI now, how do genetics evolve arms into wings, even one of the steps?
@@jacobostapowicz8188 lol no they won't answer they will just say something rude to you or ignore you lol. There definition for feathers evolution and species change when ever they wake up and realize how dumb they sound. So they lie blur meaning of words that been around for a long time. Yet they want to try to make fun of YEC for asking questions and disagreeing with academics who push absurd things like Dr. Duff lol. They will just tell you that you just don't understand evolution lol. Then when you press them on the fallacy of mutations and loss of genes leads to evolution lol. Or you will just get no reply as the honest ones know and don't want to admit their fantasy of science lol..
@@jacobostapowicz8188 Since a wing (as in bird) is literally just a theropod arm (not even one new bone or novel muscle connection), with some minor digit loss (the genetics of which have been pinned down years ago) perhaps you are behind the data curve here. What sources have you drawn on for your notions? You have in other venues hinted at the Flood as a cause of some stuff, so sounds like you're slurping from various YEC troughs.
@jamesdownard1510 Nobody knows the actual sequence of mutations that supposedly lead to this extreme variation, including the invention of flight and feathers. Instead, they construct a landscape within which allows them to deny the requirement for evidence. DNA is indifferent and ignorant to the world, it is blind and has no motive. Please stop pretending that it wants to survive, creatures have will and motive and desired purpose but not genes. Every explanation of common ancestry (including yours) is entirely composed of comparative analysis. Thats not science, its an imaginary connection based on the theory itself.
I respect engineers but there is a reason why they aren't usually know for breakthroughs and discoveries in biology, because it's obviously outside of their field of expertise and doubly so for creationist engineers. In my opinion it's a type of hubris for an engineer to think they understand biology and evolution better than actual professional biologists.
I've heard somewhere that there tends to be more engineers as YEC proponents because they are very much attuned to design as that is central to their work.
@@tedvdw1975 I've heard the same as well. It certainly seems plausible, it's just too bad that they frequently don't see the problem with thinking that they're some how more knowledgeable than the actual experts in their fields.
I have always wondered about the logic of ‘clean’ animals. The first mention is in Genesis 7:2, and the word ‘clean’ (Tahor in Hebrew) doesn’t appear before that. So what does ‘clean animal’ mean. There were no divine prohibitions about what could and could not be eaten until the book of Leviticus, which according to even YEC chronology is at least 2,000 after Noah. The only only other concern about clean animals was in connection with ‘sacrifices’ made to ‘God’ in the desert or the first Temple built in the time of Solomon (at least 500 years after Moses). None of it is true pf course, but even within the fundamentalist world view it falls apart.
The how did they know how to care for their young question he asks at the end is something I wonder about YEC views of humans. In their opinion did Adam and Eve have this same parenting instinct/knowlege just dropped on them at creation also to care for their young? If so, why didn't that instinct stay with humans the same way it does with the birds and other animals? Or did they get explicit child care instructions from God that first 24-hour day along with everything else they had going on? Or is keeping small human children alive less complex even than small birds in their eyes?
I would accept giraffes being a different ‘kind’ if they had far more neck vertebrae than okapi (or us). But they have 7: just bigger ones. All vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Not about to debate any YEC diehard here, as it is a waste of my limited time and resources.
4:30 //The question arises, where did these birds learn to weave their nesting masterpiece? How did they know when to begin building? Or how to care for the chicks?// To be crude, it's called *_post-nut clarity,_* my dude. The male bust his birdie 💦 and immediately gets busy building a nest. Oh, and (from the Wiki) get this: The southern masked weaver nests in colonies...Males have several female partners, and build a succession of nests, typically 25 each season. //This is another mystery where the Bible makes sense of the world. The knowledge, skills, motivation, and instinct were provided by the Creator Himself at the beginning, when He created birds on Day 5 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:20-23).// Be more like the southern masked weaver: Have 25 partners per year and build a house for each and every one of them. Can't argue with that. 🤷♂️
My background is mathematics, and some of the ID critiques seem plausible, e.g. on the low probability of certain things occurring "randomly" biologically. I also appreciate their information theoretic approach. As an aside, I understand that origin of life is a different topic. Would you consider having an ID guy on to interact with?
Is the probability actually low, though, when there are nigh infinite dice rolls involved? And when several steps are occurring in tandem? And when there's essentially banking of correct, *_or at least good enough,_* results, somewhere between, say Yahtzee and a save file? 🎲 💾 Part of what seems to be at play for the idea irreducible complexity is an inversion of the *_Gambler's Fallacy coupled with post hoc rationalization._* Example: I've just flipped a coin. Odds for either result, roughly 50/50. Each time I flip it is an independent event having no bearing on the previous result(s). But if it keeps coming up one way or the other, someone might bet that this *_”lucky streak”_* will continue, while others might bet against it because my *_”luck's bound to run out.”_* But again, each time I flip, it's an independent event having no bearing on the previous result(s). What are the odds that event could happen 5, 10, 20....1 *_BAJILLION_* times in a row ⁉️ Each time I flip it is an independent event having no bearing on the previous result(s). We can calculate the probability, *_in advance,_* but it doesn't change the outcome that *_might_* happen. We can calculate the probability, *_afterwards,_* but it doesn't change the outcome that *_has already_* happened. But the complexity of life, is not as simplistic as coin tosses. It's more like the recall formula as paraphrased by the narrator in Fight Club: 1. Take the number of the vehicles in the field (A). 2. Multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B). 3. Multiply it by the average out of court settlement (C). 4. A times B times C equals X. 5. If X is less than the cost of a recall, a recall is not initiated. If we replace the word *_”recall”_* with *_”extinct,_* we get a little bit closer to how nature, red in tooth and claw operates. That's where *_R vs K reproductive strategies_* come in, whether organisms reproduce more like fish or even simpler creatures, with hundreds to thousands to millions of offspring per spawning or more like bears that average one to three cubs per litter. *_R selected_* populations focus on quantity over quality, and have a high mortality rate. *_K selected_* populations, on the other hand, have very low mortality rates at childbirth, have few offspring, but put more energy into nurturing them. In either case, on average, only one or two of these offspring survive long enough to mate and have offspring of their own. And that's where we can reference the ridiculous song, *_I Just Had S3x by The Lonely Island:_* [V] Doesn't matter had s3x [X] Doesn't matter had s3x [Y] Doesn't matter had s3x [Z] Still counts... Reproduction is a matter of getting the gametes together, making viable offspring, said offspring surviving long enough to also reproduce, rinse, repeat. It's not guided, per se, although instincts play a part. And then after that we run into the existential dread of infinite probabilities. If one of your parents didn't make that left turn at Albuquerque, they never would have been in proximity to each other to fall in love (or just lust) and you wouldn't be here today.
Oh, and it's that surface level plausibility that apologists are banking on as thought stopping exercises. And for my coin flipping example, look up: *_multiple flips and independent events._* [ _Not to be facetious but it's week 1 of stats class._ ] P(E1 and E2) = P(E1) x P(E2) Two things everyone should learn before college that seems to be locked behind such a paywall, are: *_Correlation does not equal causation._* And the *_Gambler's Fallacy._* It's a big part of why anti-intellectualism is so rampant and why colleges are painted as being *_breeding grounds for Liberal Ideologies._⁸ Of course Western religion politics would crumble in a generation if we introduced these basics of critical thinking at the preschool level. No wonder the educational children's programming of PBS is threatened with defunding. 🤷♂️
@@AnnoyingNewslettersyep. Well explained. The surface-level 'common sense' probability argument espoused by our Creationist sock-puppet here is only plausible if you've never read a book on evolution.
you wrote: _some of the ID critiques seem plausible, e.g. on the low probability of certain things occurring "randomly" biologically._ and I bet, that you, as a math guy, that you have never heard of so called "convergent evolution" (in lay man term -- repeated evolution) ... As to probability -- that is something ... you wouldn't believe ... Biologists invented this term "convergent evolution" in order to explain away some facts that do not fit the theory ... so, speaking of probability, you would be shocked what these people (evolutionists) claim ... one example for all -- these people claim, that C4 and CAM photosynthesis should have evolved up to 90 times repeatedly ... a quote from a mainstream paper: "The evolutionary path and the fact that it has been traversed multiple times independently are somewhat puzzling given that both pathways represent complex traits, which require multiple genes to change simultaneously. They require architectural adaptations-large storage vacuoles in obligatory CAM, Kranz anatomy, or highly specialized cell anatomy in C4-and biochemical adaptations with at least a dozen gene products altered in abundance and regulation.” apart from these two types of photosynthesis, according to this theory, there are thousands of other very complex things that should have "evolved" repeatedly -- sometimes even in the same time period of Earth's history ! PS: lay people have no idea what these people claim ... this theory is beyond absurd ... (I am a mechanical engineer with decent background in IT and I am quite familiar with the theory of evolution, the more I study it, the more I study biology (it became my hobby), the more I think that this theory it is some kind of fake news / hoax / conspiracy ... especially in 21st century ... )
@@williamchamberlain2263 Uh, there's nothing incompatible with Christianity and theistic evolution. Also, the ID claims are very different than YEC claims. YECers should not be taken seriously.
This guy clearly doesn't actually understand what is actually meant by irreducible complexity. Neither do most of the commenters here. It has to do with cellular machinery. See Behe's works on the subject. He also sets up the usual straw man/equivocal argument suggesting that creationists actually argue FOR evolution by pointing out examples of adaptation. Adaptation is NOT evolution. Adaptation merely selects for traits that ALREADY EXIST in the genome. I grow weary of the small-brained comments on videos like these. Creationists understand the evolutionist's arguments much better than most evolutionists do. But I don't think evolutionists bother to really dig any deeper than the surface.
I'm sorry, but no. Irreducible complexity doesn't refer only to cellular machinery. Behe used that as one example of supposed irreducible complexity but it's not the only one, not even the original one afaik. The eye is one of the most used examples, although it's becoming less popular as knowledge of eye evolution has become more widespread. Apologists are knowledgeable enough to know they shouldn't box themselves in that way. After all, the evolution of all parts of all types of cells is also perfectly explainable and if knowledge of those processes becomes as widespread as knowledge of eye evolution or whatever, they'll just have made fools of themselves again. Also. Accurately describing someone's position is not a straw man, although it may be impolite. Adaptation literally is evolution, that conclusion isn't a misrepresentation of creationist beliefs, it's a description of the scientific consensus. Plus of course no one is saying apologists ACCEPT that they are arguing for evolution - just pointing out the irony of it. In any case, there is no dividing line, however much you might want to see it. The fact that you dislike the ramifications of your beliefs doesn't mean other people have a responsibility not to point them out. Evolution is literally just a series of adaptations, and while creationists don't accept that, acknowledging as much is literally what counterapologists are doing. And of course natural selection selects from genetics that already exist, no one suggests otherwise (well, except the lying apologists who love to ignore that this "problem" has been explained to them many, many times). The variation is produced through mutation - which is itself a great example of obvious NON design. A human designer who came up with something as over-complicated and prone to failure as DNA (cancer, anyone?!) would likely be prosecuted for gross negligence. Some designer! But hey, if you want to argue that we were incompetently made in the image of a god whose food and air tubes cross over for no good reason resulting in multiple deaths by choking all over the world per year, I guess I can't argue with you.
I'm sorry, but no. Irreducible complexity doesn't refer only to cellular machinery. Behe used that as one example of supposed irreducible complexity but it's not the only one, not even the original one afaik. The eye is one of the most used examples, although it's becoming less popular as knowledge of eye evolution has become more widespread. Apologists are knowledgeable enough to know they shouldn't box themselves in that way. After all, the evolution of all parts of all types of cells is also perfectly explainable and if knowledge of those processes becomes as widespread as knowledge of eye evolution or whatever, they'll just have made fools of themselves again. Also. Accurately describing someone's position is not a straw man, although it may be impolite. Adaptation literally is evolution, that conclusion isn't a misrepresentation of creationist beliefs, it's a description of the scientific consensus. Plus of course no one is saying apologists ACCEPT that they are arguing for evolution - just pointing out the irony of it. In any case, there is no dividing line, however much you might want to see it. The fact that you dislike the ramifications of your beliefs doesn't mean other people have a responsibility not to point them out. Evolution is literally just a series of adaptations, and while creationists don't accept that, acknowledging as much is literally what counterapologists are doing. And of course natural selection selects from genetics that already exist, no one suggests otherwise (well, except the lying apologists who love to ignore that this "problem" has been explained to them many, many times). The variation is produced through mutation - which is itself a great example of obvious NON design. A human designer who came up with something as over-complicated and prone to failure as DNA (cancer, anyone?!) would likely be prosecuted for gross negligence. Some designer! But hey, if you want to argue that we were incompetently made in the image of a god whose food and air tubes cross over for no good reason resulting in multiple deaths by choking all over the world per year, I guess I can't argue with you.
Joel Duff is not an atheist. I think he's critiquing the YEC view of "irreducible complexity." The ID position is far more reasonable, and I'd like to see Joel interact with an ID scientist/biologist.
Yes, you got much of our views correct. For an atheist you gave a fair review. Some of your critique could even be right. We believe more in the adaptability of animals within the kinds more than the billions of years evolutionists do in the species. We believe they all adapted from the kinds in a mere few thousands of years. And yes we believe and science is proving us correct that all of this is preprogrammed into the genome. Little DNA mutation required. Darwin was wrong, Lamarck was more correct. Even Darwin's own finches are now shown by science to be epigenetic changes and not the result of DNA mutations. The genome and all 21st century science has discovered about the cell is what 100% convinces me we are not and could not have been of purely natural causes. Evolution went from Darwin thinking the cell was nothing more than a mush of several compounds to “DNA must be 98% junk in order for evolution to be true because natural selection is messy, incomplete, and inefficient" (are you not old enough to remember that prediction?) to now 21st century discovering the cell has amazing order and complexity beyond our wildest previous imagination. 21st century science discovered the cell has a 4 dimensional genome that is folded different ways and read different ways with DNA that is an actual Turing machine and is fully functional with no junk and highly orderly with amazing layers of complexity using a bidirectional transport system where Kinesin and Dynein motors move along Microtubules constructed of interlocking proteins, in opposite directions, stepping around each other and avoiding obstacles while carrying payloads, burning 1 ATP energy for each step, 125,000 steps per millimeter, using energy created by a completely separate ATP engine. Remove any single function and there is no life. What an amazing miracle life is. If a cell were blown up to the size of the world's largest most advanced city on the planet, the cell would contain more machinery and manufacturing and computational abilities on scale than that city. There is no openly honest logic that justifies believing this is of purely natural causes. Surely these advances in science are explained by evolution in detail and why one would conclude this all evolved. Where is this science explaining this logic to make the conclusions evolution is still a valid science after it’s failed predictions? Biology of the cell has discovered such glaringly obvious design that it requires completely deluding yourself to cling to any idea of purely natural causes. Trillions of years is not enough for life to have started that 1st cell. It is as obvious as looking at a building and knowing it had a builder w/o any other confirmation other than just seeing the building standing there. How can you possibly not see this? EDIT: This was the first video I watched from you and know little about your beliefs. I just watched another and obviously I was completely wrong calling you an atheist. Forgive me please. Much of your reasoning seems pretty sound, I still believe YEC, but I will be glad to watch more of your videos. Maybe even subscribe.
"Cells and DNA are too complex for me to understand, so God made them" You claim there's science supporting your views, and that evolution has too many failed predictions to be true, but last time I checked, the entire field of biology was built on predictions made by evolution, without anything pointing to creationism other than gaps in knowledge (which only point to something if you have faith/are dishonest). Would you mind pointing me to some of the sources for your claims?
@@jairomenares2089 I will make a prediction on my own: Majority (if not all) of his sources come from creationist institutions and publications (not peer-revieved).
@@jairomenares2089 There is science supporting everything I stated. Nobel Prize winning evolutionary biologist Sydney Brenner says DNA is a Turing machine. Turing award winner (Nobel Prize equivalent in Computer Science) Leonard Adleman who first coined the term "Computer Virus" and invented much of the encryption we use for things like online banking has also says DNA is a Turing machine and is called the father of the field of DNA COMPUTING because he discovered it. The fact DNA is an actual Turing machine makes it a much greater computer than any man has ever built. The computers we build can only emulate a Turing machine. Because of Adleman's discovery about DNA, it has lead researchers to demonstrate what Computer Science has always called the impossible computer, the one man could never build. The impossible computer is the non-deterministic universal Turing machine. We are unable to build one on silicon, however researchers have demonstrated an NUTM in the lab using DNA they did not build. Google "Computing exponentially faster: implementing a non-deterministic universal Turing machine using DNA". We are biological computers and machines at the cellular level. I already showed Evolution's failed predictions of junk DNA. Google "ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA". neo-Darwinian Evolution is holding science back. There are many calls within science to replace it, calling for a new synthesis. It fails to recognize heritable changes and epigenetics. You need to research scientist like Denis Noble (not even an ID proponent) who says the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a failure and needs to be replace. It is holding up genetic cures. Google "Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out". I am a life long Senior Mainframe Systems Programmer that retired from IBM and now own my own ISP service and MSP company. I understand complexity and I do not need anyone to tell me computers and Turing machines do not poop themselves out of the mush. The design is completely obvious.
Dr. Duff your so incredibly obtuse when it comes to common sense, yet you want to criticise YEC for asking good questions. Just because it ruins most of the stories you lie about and call evidence. Yet you're bad examples shaded with colors from ignorance to deceptive. He is another perfect example when little men get a little power.
Let's save time (and let Joel keep whatever hair he still has left, and not tear it out in frustration) and cut to the chase. YEC hate to explain things, they're used to dealing with people who don't need or want things explained, and they only offer an explanation when they are forced to. And , inevitably it's ALWAYS wrong.
People that believe in common ancestry evolution will never provide any evidence aside from connecting species with lines on paper.
There is never an account of mutation sequences in studies or observation, thats why they cannot explain the ddx11L2 gene located inside the supposed fusion site of human chromosome 2.
So they wash their brains with 'tiny incremental changes over incomprehensible lengths of time' and evade critical thought.
Even if you demonstrated common descent and extreme speciation that the experts suggest happened, it would never prove thats what happened in the past.
And yet evos claim that Creationism is unfalsifiable, what would falsify universal common ancestry?
I get this impression from every YEC videos that i see. "There is this thing that is really complex and we dont have a explanation for why they do this thing so it "MUST" of been created by the creator"
I hate to be repetitive; time to show this calculation again, to illustrate the issue in a general sense. There are anywhere from 1 to 8 million animal species (both described and not found yet) Using the low number of 1 million, for us to have the animals we have right now, would have required somewhere between 200-300 unique species a year, every year without fail, for the thousands of years between The Flood and present day.
There are around one million species of Beetles. Just Beetles.
@@jimmiewomble416a majority of those are weevils. Why _does_ God love long-nosed bugs so much?
Extinction vs Speciation
Cool, where are the emergent new species currently developing venoms, feathers, repurposing their appendages?
Where can we see these developments in real time?
Migration will ALWAYS work against extreme speciation, and aside from limited variations and Migration, there is extinction.
@@williamchamberlain2263 Maybe is God is trying to compensate for something?
"Species" is just a category that HUMANS create for the purpose of cataloging life. There are many different species of the same "kind" that are CAPABLE of interbreeding (doesn't mean that they necessarily do). What we call different "species" CAN emerge from the same parent kind through selective pressures. But they are still just variations of the SAME KIND of animal, with traits that are ALREADY PRESENT in the genome being selected for. It is NOT a process whereby frogs can turn into dogs, though. But evolutionists are fond of pointing to these types of selective events and saying "SEE, SEE! EVOLUTION HAPPENS!" No, just, no. SMH
@26:00 Jackson Wheat and I will be devoting a whole chapter in Vol 2 of Rocks Were There to a detailed breakdown of the murky aspects of the Ark Encounter kind list.
I look forward to it 🙂
How about a detailed breakdown of any mutation sequences that lead to new features and characteristics, new body plans, during speciation?
We have AI now, how do genetics evolve arms into wings, even one of the steps?
@@jacobostapowicz8188 lol no they won't answer they will just say something rude to you or ignore you lol. There definition for feathers evolution and species change when ever they wake up and realize how dumb they sound. So they lie blur meaning of words that been around for a long time. Yet they want to try to make fun of YEC for asking questions and disagreeing with academics who push absurd things like Dr. Duff lol. They will just tell you that you just don't understand evolution lol. Then when you press them on the fallacy of mutations and loss of genes leads to evolution lol. Or you will just get no reply as the honest ones know and don't want to admit their fantasy of science lol..
@@jacobostapowicz8188 Since a wing (as in bird) is literally just a theropod arm (not even one new bone or novel muscle connection), with some minor digit loss (the genetics of which have been pinned down years ago) perhaps you are behind the data curve here. What sources have you drawn on for your notions? You have in other venues hinted at the Flood as a cause of some stuff, so sounds like you're slurping from various YEC troughs.
@jamesdownard1510
Nobody knows the actual sequence of mutations that supposedly lead to this extreme variation, including the invention of flight and feathers.
Instead, they construct a landscape within which allows them to deny the requirement for evidence.
DNA is indifferent and ignorant to the world, it is blind and has no motive. Please stop pretending that it wants to survive, creatures have will and motive and desired purpose but not genes.
Every explanation of common ancestry (including yours) is entirely composed of comparative analysis.
Thats not science, its an imaginary connection based on the theory itself.
I respect engineers but there is a reason why they aren't usually know for breakthroughs and discoveries in biology, because it's obviously outside of their field of expertise and doubly so for creationist engineers. In my opinion it's a type of hubris for an engineer to think they understand biology and evolution better than actual professional biologists.
I've heard somewhere that there tends to be more engineers as YEC proponents because they are very much attuned to design as that is central to their work.
@@tedvdw1975 I've heard the same as well. It certainly seems plausible, it's just too bad that they frequently don't see the problem with thinking that they're some how more knowledgeable than the actual experts in their fields.
0:50 yep, another creationist talking about something in which they have no expertise whatsoever. 🤦♂️
Gosh darn, creationists really don't think much do they?
it is exactly the other way around ...
How do YECers explain the multitude of bugs? Or do they even bother?
If past answers are any indication, it’s hyper, turbocharged evolution
I have always wondered about the logic of ‘clean’ animals. The first mention is in Genesis 7:2, and the word ‘clean’ (Tahor in Hebrew) doesn’t appear before that.
So what does ‘clean animal’ mean. There were no divine prohibitions about what could and could not be eaten until the book of Leviticus, which according to even YEC chronology is at least 2,000 after Noah.
The only only other concern about clean animals was in connection with ‘sacrifices’ made to ‘God’ in the desert or the first Temple built in the time of Solomon (at least 500 years after Moses).
None of it is true pf course, but even within the fundamentalist world view it falls apart.
Hello everyone!
The how did they know how to care for their young question he asks at the end is something I wonder about YEC views of humans. In their opinion did Adam and Eve have this same parenting instinct/knowlege just dropped on them at creation also to care for their young? If so, why didn't that instinct stay with humans the same way it does with the birds and other animals? Or did they get explicit child care instructions from God that first 24-hour day along with everything else they had going on? Or is keeping small human children alive less complex even than small birds in their eyes?
I would accept giraffes being a different ‘kind’ if they had far more neck vertebrae than okapi (or us). But they have 7: just bigger ones.
All vertebrates evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years.
Not about to debate any YEC diehard here, as it is a waste of my limited time and resources.
Sexual Selection A.K.A. "This bird just thinks that that's hot."
4:30 //The question arises, where did these birds learn to weave their nesting masterpiece? How did they know when to begin building? Or how to care for the chicks?//
To be crude, it's called *_post-nut clarity,_* my dude.
The male bust his birdie 💦 and immediately gets busy building a nest.
Oh, and (from the Wiki) get this:
The southern masked weaver nests in colonies...Males have several female partners, and build a succession of nests, typically 25 each season.
//This is another mystery where the Bible makes sense of the world. The knowledge, skills, motivation, and instinct were provided by the Creator Himself at the beginning, when He created birds on Day 5 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:20-23).//
Be more like the southern masked weaver: Have 25 partners per year and build a house for each and every one of them. Can't argue with that. 🤷♂️
The answer seems obvious to me: God is so awesome, he made organisms who can evolve new traits. Problem solved.
My background is mathematics, and some of the ID critiques seem plausible, e.g. on the low probability of certain things occurring "randomly" biologically. I also appreciate their information theoretic approach. As an aside, I understand that origin of life is a different topic. Would you consider having an ID guy on to interact with?
Is the probability actually low, though, when there are nigh infinite dice rolls involved?
And when several steps are occurring in tandem?
And when there's essentially banking of correct, *_or at least good enough,_* results, somewhere between, say Yahtzee and a save file? 🎲 💾
Part of what seems to be at play for the idea irreducible complexity is an inversion of the *_Gambler's Fallacy coupled with post hoc rationalization._*
Example:
I've just flipped a coin. Odds for either result, roughly 50/50.
Each time I flip it is an independent event having no bearing on the previous result(s).
But if it keeps coming up one way or the other, someone might bet that this *_”lucky streak”_* will continue, while others might bet against it because my *_”luck's bound to run out.”_*
But again, each time I flip, it's an independent event having no bearing on the previous result(s).
What are the odds that event could happen 5, 10, 20....1 *_BAJILLION_* times in a row ⁉️
Each time I flip it is an independent event having no bearing on the previous result(s).
We can calculate the probability, *_in advance,_* but it doesn't change the outcome that *_might_* happen.
We can calculate the probability, *_afterwards,_* but it doesn't change the outcome that *_has already_* happened.
But the complexity of life, is not as simplistic as coin tosses.
It's more like the recall formula as paraphrased by the narrator in Fight Club:
1. Take the number of the vehicles in the field (A).
2. Multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B).
3. Multiply it by the average out of court settlement (C).
4. A times B times C equals X.
5. If X is less than the cost of a recall, a recall is not initiated.
If we replace the word *_”recall”_* with *_”extinct,_* we get a little bit closer to how nature, red in tooth and claw operates.
That's where *_R vs K reproductive strategies_* come in, whether organisms reproduce more like fish or even simpler creatures, with hundreds to thousands to millions of offspring per spawning or more like bears that average one to three cubs per litter.
*_R selected_* populations focus on quantity over quality, and have a high mortality rate.
*_K selected_* populations, on the other hand, have very low mortality rates at childbirth, have few offspring, but put more energy into nurturing them.
In either case, on average, only one or two of these offspring survive long enough to mate and have offspring of their own.
And that's where we can reference the ridiculous song, *_I Just Had S3x by The Lonely Island:_*
[V]
Doesn't matter had s3x
[X]
Doesn't matter had s3x
[Y]
Doesn't matter had s3x
[Z]
Still counts...
Reproduction is a matter of getting the gametes together, making viable offspring, said offspring surviving long enough to also reproduce, rinse, repeat.
It's not guided, per se, although instincts play a part.
And then after that we run into the existential dread of infinite probabilities. If one of your parents didn't make that left turn at Albuquerque, they never would have been in proximity to each other to fall in love (or just lust) and you wouldn't be here today.
Oh, and it's that surface level plausibility that apologists are banking on as thought stopping exercises.
And for my coin flipping example, look up: *_multiple flips and independent events._*
[ _Not to be facetious but it's week 1 of stats class._ ]
P(E1 and E2) = P(E1) x P(E2)
Two things everyone should learn before college that seems to be locked behind such a paywall, are:
*_Correlation does not equal causation._*
And the *_Gambler's Fallacy._*
It's a big part of why anti-intellectualism is so rampant and why colleges are painted as being *_breeding grounds for Liberal Ideologies._⁸
Of course Western religion politics would crumble in a generation if we introduced these basics of critical thinking at the preschool level.
No wonder the educational children's programming of PBS is threatened with defunding. 🤷♂️
@@AnnoyingNewslettersyep. Well explained.
The surface-level 'common sense' probability argument espoused by our Creationist sock-puppet here is only plausible if you've never read a book on evolution.
you wrote: _some of the ID critiques seem plausible, e.g. on the low probability of certain things occurring "randomly" biologically._
and I bet, that you, as a math guy, that you have never heard of so called "convergent evolution" (in lay man term -- repeated evolution) ...
As to probability -- that is something ... you wouldn't believe ...
Biologists invented this term "convergent evolution" in order to explain away some facts that do not fit the theory ...
so, speaking of probability, you would be shocked what these people (evolutionists) claim ... one example for all -- these people claim, that C4 and CAM photosynthesis should have evolved up to 90 times repeatedly ...
a quote from a mainstream paper:
"The evolutionary path and the fact that it has been traversed multiple times independently are somewhat puzzling given that both pathways represent complex traits, which require multiple genes to change simultaneously. They require architectural adaptations-large storage vacuoles in obligatory CAM, Kranz anatomy, or highly specialized cell anatomy in C4-and biochemical adaptations with at least a dozen gene products altered in abundance and regulation.”
apart from these two types of photosynthesis, according to this theory, there are thousands of other very complex things that should have "evolved" repeatedly -- sometimes even in the same time period of Earth's history !
PS: lay people have no idea what these people claim ... this theory is beyond absurd ... (I am a mechanical engineer with decent background in IT and I am quite familiar with the theory of evolution, the more I study it, the more I study biology (it became my hobby), the more I think that this theory it is some kind of fake news / hoax / conspiracy ... especially in 21st century ... )
@@williamchamberlain2263 Uh, there's nothing incompatible with Christianity and theistic evolution.
Also, the ID claims are very different than YEC claims. YECers should not be taken seriously.
This guy clearly doesn't actually understand what is actually meant by irreducible complexity. Neither do most of the commenters here. It has to do with cellular machinery. See Behe's works on the subject. He also sets up the usual straw man/equivocal argument suggesting that creationists actually argue FOR evolution by pointing out examples of adaptation. Adaptation is NOT evolution. Adaptation merely selects for traits that ALREADY EXIST in the genome. I grow weary of the small-brained comments on videos like these. Creationists understand the evolutionist's arguments much better than most evolutionists do. But I don't think evolutionists bother to really dig any deeper than the surface.
I'm sorry, but no. Irreducible complexity doesn't refer only to cellular machinery. Behe used that as one example of supposed irreducible complexity but it's not the only one, not even the original one afaik. The eye is one of the most used examples, although it's becoming less popular as knowledge of eye evolution has become more widespread. Apologists are knowledgeable enough to know they shouldn't box themselves in that way. After all, the evolution of all parts of all types of cells is also perfectly explainable and if knowledge of those processes becomes as widespread as knowledge of eye evolution or whatever, they'll just have made fools of themselves again.
Also. Accurately describing someone's position is not a straw man, although it may be impolite. Adaptation literally is evolution, that conclusion isn't a misrepresentation of creationist beliefs, it's a description of the scientific consensus. Plus of course no one is saying apologists ACCEPT that they are arguing for evolution - just pointing out the irony of it. In any case, there is no dividing line, however much you might want to see it. The fact that you dislike the ramifications of your beliefs doesn't mean other people have a responsibility not to point them out. Evolution is literally just a series of adaptations, and while creationists don't accept that, acknowledging as much is literally what counterapologists are doing. And of course natural selection selects from genetics that already exist, no one suggests otherwise (well, except the lying apologists who love to ignore that this "problem" has been explained to them many, many times). The variation is produced through mutation - which is itself a great example of obvious NON design. A human designer who came up with something as over-complicated and prone to failure as DNA (cancer, anyone?!) would likely be prosecuted for gross negligence. Some designer!
But hey, if you want to argue that we were incompetently made in the image of a god whose food and air tubes cross over for no good reason resulting in multiple deaths by choking all over the world per year, I guess I can't argue with you.
I'm sorry, but no. Irreducible complexity doesn't refer only to cellular machinery. Behe used that as one example of supposed irreducible complexity but it's not the only one, not even the original one afaik. The eye is one of the most used examples, although it's becoming less popular as knowledge of eye evolution has become more widespread. Apologists are knowledgeable enough to know they shouldn't box themselves in that way. After all, the evolution of all parts of all types of cells is also perfectly explainable and if knowledge of those processes becomes as widespread as knowledge of eye evolution or whatever, they'll just have made fools of themselves again.
Also. Accurately describing someone's position is not a straw man, although it may be impolite. Adaptation literally is evolution, that conclusion isn't a misrepresentation of creationist beliefs, it's a description of the scientific consensus. Plus of course no one is saying apologists ACCEPT that they are arguing for evolution - just pointing out the irony of it. In any case, there is no dividing line, however much you might want to see it. The fact that you dislike the ramifications of your beliefs doesn't mean other people have a responsibility not to point them out. Evolution is literally just a series of adaptations, and while creationists don't accept that, acknowledging as much is literally what counterapologists are doing. And of course natural selection selects from genetics that already exist, no one suggests otherwise (well, except the lying apologists who love to ignore that this "problem" has been explained to them many, many times). The variation is produced through mutation - which is itself a great example of obvious NON design. A human designer who came up with something as over-complicated and prone to failure as DNA (cancer, anyone?!) would likely be prosecuted for gross negligence. Some designer!
But hey, if you want to argue that we were incompetently made in the image of a god whose food and air tubes cross over for no good reason resulting in multiple deaths by choking all over the world per year, I guess I can't argue with you.
Joel Duff is not an atheist. I think he's critiquing the YEC view of "irreducible complexity." The ID position is far more reasonable, and I'd like to see Joel interact with an ID scientist/biologist.
You are making excuses. There is no evolution even if there is variation.
Yes, you got much of our views correct. For an atheist you gave a fair review. Some of your critique could even be right. We believe more in the adaptability of animals within the kinds more than the billions of years evolutionists do in the species. We believe they all adapted from the kinds in a mere few thousands of years. And yes we believe and science is proving us correct that all of this is preprogrammed into the genome. Little DNA mutation required. Darwin was wrong, Lamarck was more correct. Even Darwin's own finches are now shown by science to be epigenetic changes and not the result of DNA mutations. The genome and all 21st century science has discovered about the cell is what 100% convinces me we are not and could not have been of purely natural causes.
Evolution went from Darwin thinking the cell was nothing more than a mush of several compounds to “DNA must be 98% junk in order for evolution to be true because natural selection is messy, incomplete, and inefficient" (are you not old enough to remember that prediction?) to now 21st century discovering the cell has amazing order and complexity beyond our wildest previous imagination.
21st century science discovered the cell has a 4 dimensional genome that is folded different ways and read different ways with DNA that is an actual Turing machine and is fully functional with no junk and highly orderly with amazing layers of complexity using a bidirectional transport system where Kinesin and Dynein motors move along Microtubules constructed of interlocking proteins, in opposite directions, stepping around each other and avoiding obstacles while carrying payloads, burning 1 ATP energy for each step, 125,000 steps per millimeter, using energy created by a completely separate ATP engine. Remove any single function and there is no life. What an amazing miracle life is.
If a cell were blown up to the size of the world's largest most advanced city on the planet, the cell would contain more machinery and manufacturing and computational abilities on scale than that city. There is no openly honest logic that justifies believing this is of purely natural causes.
Surely these advances in science are explained by evolution in detail and why one would conclude this all evolved. Where is this science explaining this logic to make the conclusions evolution is still a valid science after it’s failed predictions?
Biology of the cell has discovered such glaringly obvious design that it requires completely deluding yourself to cling to any idea of purely natural causes. Trillions of years is not enough for life to have started that 1st cell. It is as obvious as looking at a building and knowing it had a builder w/o any other confirmation other than just seeing the building standing there. How can you possibly not see this?
EDIT: This was the first video I watched from you and know little about your beliefs. I just watched another and obviously I was completely wrong calling you an atheist. Forgive me please. Much of your reasoning seems pretty sound, I still believe YEC, but I will be glad to watch more of your videos. Maybe even subscribe.
"Cells and DNA are too complex for me to understand, so God made them"
You claim there's science supporting your views, and that evolution has too many failed predictions to be true, but last time I checked, the entire field of biology was built on predictions made by evolution, without anything pointing to creationism other than gaps in knowledge (which only point to something if you have faith/are dishonest).
Would you mind pointing me to some of the sources for your claims?
@@jairomenares2089 I will make a prediction on my own: Majority (if not all) of his sources come from creationist institutions and publications (not peer-revieved).
@@jairomenares2089 There is science supporting everything I stated. Nobel Prize winning evolutionary biologist Sydney Brenner says DNA is a Turing machine. Turing award winner (Nobel Prize equivalent in Computer Science) Leonard Adleman who first coined the term "Computer Virus" and invented much of the encryption we use for things like online banking has also says DNA is a Turing machine and is called the father of the field of DNA COMPUTING because he discovered it. The fact DNA is an actual Turing machine makes it a much greater computer than any man has ever built. The computers we build can only emulate a Turing machine. Because of Adleman's discovery about DNA, it has lead researchers to demonstrate what Computer Science has always called the impossible computer, the one man could never build. The impossible computer is the non-deterministic universal Turing machine. We are unable to build one on silicon, however researchers have demonstrated an NUTM in the lab using DNA they did not build. Google "Computing exponentially faster: implementing a non-deterministic universal Turing machine using DNA".
We are biological computers and machines at the cellular level. I already showed Evolution's failed predictions of junk DNA. Google "ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA". neo-Darwinian Evolution is holding science back. There are many calls within science to replace it, calling for a new synthesis. It fails to recognize heritable changes and epigenetics. You need to research scientist like Denis Noble (not even an ID proponent) who says the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a failure and needs to be replace. It is holding up genetic cures. Google "Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out".
I am a life long Senior Mainframe Systems Programmer that retired from IBM and now own my own ISP service and MSP company. I understand complexity and I do not need anyone to tell me computers and Turing machines do not poop themselves out of the mush. The design is completely obvious.
Joel Duff is not an atheist.
Dr. Duff your so incredibly obtuse when it comes to common sense, yet you want to criticise YEC for asking good questions. Just because it ruins most of the stories you lie about and call evidence. Yet you're bad examples shaded with colors from ignorance to deceptive. He is another perfect example when little men get a little power.