You know, had I seen this 8 or 10 years ago I would call this guy delusional and anti science. However after graduating from Environmental Biology and Mathematics I admit that most of what he says I can agree on. Im not a theist but I own up and swallow my pride to say that he has a great point. I don't agree with all of it but 75% of what he says its actually found in the scientific literature so good luck on that if you disagree with him.
Evolution through adaptation, over time. How is this not logical? Still dont understand how deep thinkers can't believe you can have evolution through adaptation by intelligent design.
Direct observation is not the only form of observation. We observe the behaviour of stars that may not even exist any more. The fossil record is a very clear and observable record of observable change. The genetic record is an observable record that agrees with the fossil record.
All of the fossils ever found that supposedly support evolution can fit in the trunk of your car. And most of those fossils have been filled in with an “educated” guess on what the complete fossil looked like. Furthermore, no fossil should logically count as evidence because A) you don’t know if that was just an organism that existed and went extinct B) you don’t know that the fossil had any kids C) there is not anywhere near the amount of transitional fossils for even one organism that there should be if Darwinian evolution was true....also human population today is a humongous stump to Darwinian evolution. If we and are so called “ancestors” originate to be hundred of thousands years old, the fossils in the dirt should be astronomical in numbers. But that is not at all what we see...also there should be TRILLIONS of more people on the planet today. That is no where near what we see. There are 7 billion people today; in 1850 there were 1.2 billion ppl. If you do the math to continue farther you will actually get Creationist numbers for the history of humans (look into it).
@@jbreymers8346 "All of the fossils ever found that supposedly support evolution can fit in the trunk of your car. " This is an outrageous falsehood. There are around thirty human transitional forms, some of which have thousands of examples. But this is certainly not the only lineage with a decent array of fossil forms. Furthermore, no fossil should logically count as evidence because A) you don’t know if that was just an organism that existed and went extinct Many did - what you look for are taxonomical differences and similarities and position in the fossil record compared to earlier and later forms. B) you don’t know that the fossil had any kids Irrelevant. They are samples of the population, not examples of parenting. C) there is not anywhere near the amount of transitional fossils for even one organism that there should be if Darwinian evolution was true Untrue. Fossilisation is rare and requires the individual die in a location adjacent to where it can occur. That makes it very rare. "If we and are so called “ancestors” originate to be hundred of thousands years old, the fossils in the dirt should be astronomical in numbers" Earlier human populations were low, very low. Same for homonim populations. Fossilisation was rare and you will note the very low levels of modern human fossils- because it takes a very long time.
@@ozowen5961 👎🏿incorrect..most so called human ancestor individual fossils have been teeth found or single bones(which should ring thousands of alarm bells in anyone’s head). There has only been a few early human ancestors found. They report the number of all these fossils combined to be ~7000; which is still nowhere near the correct number for human evolution to have taken place. A) taxonomical differences still make assumptions, because you are still assuming the fossil was an ancestor. I don’t even want to get started on the fossil record, so you can look up the problems and challenges it’s use faces. B) samples of the population should have more data to support it or you get huge sampling errors. The number and individual fossils we have are too few in number to make any inferences from them.
@@ozowen5961 C) is absolutely true. There is NOT anywhere near the number of transitional fossils for even one organism that there should be for evolution to have occurred.
@@ozowen5961 ..did you extrapolate the math from the current population I gave you earlier? You don’t even get to 20,000 years ago, using a generous 60 year population doubling rate, let alone hundreds of thousands of years ago. This is a well known fact that scientists still do not have the answer to...And there are millions of marked graves around the earth today. Which will eventually become fossils. What I was saying is that there are not even enough bones (which haven’t fossilized yet) let alone even fossils to support Darwinian evolution.
i like alot of this but him saying the separation of church and state isnt a standard of our country is a lie-- Most of the founding fathers were deists or atheists and we came here to get away from catholic church--- This goes too far --- My brothers is a constitutional law professor at Duke.....
25:04 this is true, this evo nonsense has been spouted so many times that people begin to think its true not noticing how ridiculous & unintelligent it is, wouldn't be surprised if they started saying 2+2=5 repeatedly and people began to believe it
@5:10 Darwin never dealt with how life originally start because that's a different subject altogether. How life starts is abiogenesis. Nothing to do with evolution. The next minute or so is unrelated to Evolution.
![[BBST 450] The Problem of Evil for Christians - Jon Rittenhouse](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5jxXI7NpnAI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[BBST 450] The Problem of Evil for Christians - Jon Rittenhouse](/img/tr.png)
You know, had I seen this 8 or 10 years ago I would call this guy delusional and anti science. However after graduating from Environmental Biology and Mathematics I admit that most of what he says I can agree on. Im not a theist but I own up and swallow my pride to say that he has a great point. I don't agree with all of it but 75% of what he says its actually found in the scientific literature so good luck on that if you disagree with him.
Evolution through adaptation, over time.
How is this not logical?
Still dont understand how deep thinkers can't believe you can have evolution through adaptation by intelligent design.
Direct observation is not the only form of observation.
We observe the behaviour of stars that may not even exist any more.
The fossil record is a very clear and observable record of observable change.
The genetic record is an observable record that agrees with the fossil record.
All of the fossils ever found that supposedly support evolution can fit in the trunk of your car. And most of those fossils have been filled in with an “educated” guess on what the complete fossil looked like. Furthermore, no fossil should logically count as evidence because A) you don’t know if that was just an organism that existed and went extinct B) you don’t know that the fossil had any kids C) there is not anywhere near the amount of transitional fossils for even one organism that there should be if Darwinian evolution was true....also human population today is a humongous stump to Darwinian evolution. If we and are so called “ancestors” originate to be hundred of thousands years old, the fossils in the dirt should be astronomical in numbers. But that is not at all what we see...also there should be TRILLIONS of more people on the planet today. That is no where near what we see. There are 7 billion people today; in 1850 there were 1.2 billion ppl. If you do the math to continue farther you will actually get Creationist numbers for the history of humans (look into it).
@@jbreymers8346
"All of the fossils ever found that supposedly support evolution can fit in the trunk of your car. "
This is an outrageous falsehood. There are around thirty human transitional forms, some of which have thousands of examples. But this is certainly not the only lineage with a decent array of fossil forms.
Furthermore, no fossil should logically count as evidence because
A) you don’t know if that was just an organism that existed and went extinct
Many did - what you look for are taxonomical differences and similarities and position in the fossil record compared to earlier and later forms.
B) you don’t know that the fossil had any kids
Irrelevant. They are samples of the population, not examples of parenting.
C) there is not anywhere near the amount of transitional fossils for even one organism that there should be if Darwinian evolution was true
Untrue. Fossilisation is rare and requires the individual die in a location adjacent to where it can occur. That makes it very rare.
"If we and are so called “ancestors” originate to be hundred of thousands years old, the fossils in the dirt should be astronomical in numbers"
Earlier human populations were low, very low. Same for homonim populations. Fossilisation was rare and you will note the very low levels of modern human fossils- because it takes a very long time.
@@ozowen5961 👎🏿incorrect..most so called human ancestor individual fossils have been teeth found or single bones(which should ring thousands of alarm bells in anyone’s head). There has only been a few early human ancestors found. They report the number of all these fossils combined to be ~7000; which is still nowhere near the correct number for human evolution to have taken place.
A) taxonomical differences still make assumptions, because you are still assuming the fossil was an ancestor. I don’t even want to get started on the fossil record, so you can look up the problems and challenges it’s use faces.
B) samples of the population should have more data to support it or you get huge sampling errors. The number and individual fossils we have are too few in number to make any inferences from them.
@@ozowen5961 C) is absolutely true. There is NOT anywhere near the number of transitional fossils for even one organism that there should be for evolution to have occurred.
@@ozowen5961 ..did you extrapolate the math from the current population I gave you earlier? You don’t even get to 20,000 years ago, using a generous 60 year population doubling rate, let alone hundreds of thousands of years ago. This is a well known fact that scientists still do not have the answer to...And there are millions of marked graves around the earth today. Which will eventually become fossils. What I was saying is that there are not even enough bones (which haven’t fossilized yet) let alone even fossils to support Darwinian evolution.
Look at all the comments below.
You guys don't have the spirit of God in you.
Forgive them Lord Jesus.
i like alot of this but him saying the separation of church and state isnt a standard of our country is a lie-- Most of the founding fathers were deists or atheists and we came here to get away from catholic church--- This goes too far --- My brothers is a constitutional law professor at Duke.....
25:04 this is true, this evo nonsense has been spouted so many times that people begin to think its true not noticing how ridiculous & unintelligent it is, wouldn't be surprised if they started saying 2+2=5 repeatedly and people began to believe it
@VC106893 Hey it is only one university! But America has Harvard, M.I.T., Yale, Princeton.
@5:10 Darwin never dealt with how life originally start because that's a different subject altogether. How life starts is abiogenesis. Nothing to do with evolution.
The next minute or so is unrelated to Evolution.
Teh stoopid, it burnz!
Jon Rittenhouse: LfJ#98.3t
Haha. I'm not even going to bother with you. The misconceptions.
Educate yourself.