Evolution Is Stupid | Dr. Randy Guliuzza on The Babylon Bee
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2023
- Dr. Randy Guliuzza visits The Babylon Bee to destroy evolution with cutting-edge biological research focused on the programmed ability of creatures to adapt-but not evolve! Oh snap! We also discuss the proper place for creationism in evangelism and apologetics and how to properly interpret Genesis (hint: there’s no evolution).
Dr. Guliuzza is the President of Institute for Creation Research (ICR).Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
ICR on UA-cam: @icrscience
Darwin Dethroned Seminar is livestreaming February 11, 2023: • Darwin Dethroned Semin...
Become a premium subscriber: babylonbee.com/plans?...
Listen to more Babylon Bee content with Bee Radio: / @babylonbeeradio
The Official The Babylon Bee Store: shop.babylonbee.com/
Follow The Babylon Bee Podcast:
Instagram: / thebabylonbeepodcast
Twitter: / babylonbeepod
Facebook: / thebabylonbeepodcast
#christian #podcast #christianity #apologetics #evangelism #babylonbee #interview
Whether you're a "sheep" or a "goat" on this topic (as mentioned during the intro), I'm grateful to TBB for conducting this interview in their usual light-hearted, humorous manner from a Christian perspective. ✝😃
A Christian perspective is to accept the reality of Evolution and not be a "inerrant bible literalist".
@@brettallen7632 So evolution gave rise to eugenics, and you claim that is Christian?
You need to read some creationist literature. They are not ignorant hicks. They have advanced degrees in scientific disciplines and they can show you how the theory of evolution is not on the solid scientific grounds that the media portrays. See for instance James Tour. He is a Christian who is highly critical of origin of life research. He is one of, if not the leading researcher in the world today in nanoengineering. Or take for instance, John Baumgardner who has a Phd in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. He developed the Terra computer program for modelling plate techtonics. His thesis was that the Noahic flood was accompanied by rapid movement of the geologic plates. His computer model supported that thesis. Interestingly, it also predicted the precise motion of the plates that secular geophysicists had deduced, but with a much shorter time scale than assumed by conventional geologists. His computer model is even used by secular geologists to demonstrate how earth's techtonic plates move, but they have to substitute millions of years for the time scale of the program, which actually shows that most of the continental drift (or the breakup of pangea) happened in a matter of months, not millions of years. And there are many other very talented scientists who are committed Christians that do not accept the theory of evolution.
You also need to understand that evolutionary theory is not the same kind of science that quantum mechanics or general relativity is. With physics you can do experiments which other researchers can reproduce to either confirm or contradict the predictions of those theories. That is empirical science. Such is not the case with evolution. Evolution happens so slowly that it cannot be observed, or so we are told. And beyond that, evolution is not reproducible. Evolution is a forensic science. It is looking at evidence and trying to deduce a theory of what happened in the past, much like a police detective trying to figure out if Jeffery Epstein hung himself or was murdered.
Evolution is less a science than a world view of some some scientists. It is a philosophy by which they try to make sense of science, or a framework by which they organize and unify all the disparate discoveries of science. Likewise, creationism is a framework by which other scientists make sense of the discoveries of science. Interestingly, the assumption of creation and design has proved very fruitful in understanding the workings of biological systems. For instance, the assumption of evolution lead geneticists to discard over 90% of our genome as junk left over from our evolutionary past. It has more recently been discovered that some of our DNA which does not code for protien nevertheless has a function. This is exactly what a researcher with a creationist philosophy would predict. And creationist researchers might be motivated by their creationist philosophy to try to figure out what the junk DNA's purpose is, where an evolutionary researcher who assumes that it is left over debris from evolutionary dead ends may not consider that a fruitful avenue of research. As a creationist, I predict that we will eventually discover that all of our DNA serves a purpose, because God created us with a purpose in mind.
Increasing faith in the unseen, through what is seen. Makes perfect sense.
Faith is fooling yourself.
@@infinity7306 no, it is God's way to come to Him. That is the way He has ordained it.
@@Scorpion-my3dv
That's pretty stupid, tbh. The convoluted nature of your god having to do a blood sacrifice to himself in order to fix a problem that he made is just laughably ridiculous. Then you add blind belief in the form of faith on top of that and it strains credulity to the point where any rational person is justified in rejecting it in its entirety.
If what is seen is said to be created by something unseen then you are no wiser ... and the unseen is no more real then it ever was.
@@infinity7306 You should look into the theology and symbolism of Jesus' sacrifice before you criticize it.
2:15 "You start with the text, that's where the truth is, that's where you find infallibility." No, for so many reasons. 1) Any faith can claim that. Any faith with a scripture can say "the book is infallible." 2) Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus but he wasn't born until Exodus. So the lineage of Adam kept the story of creation by word of mouth for how many generations over what span of time? That's not reliable information. 3) If you start off thinking you already know the truth, every piece of evidence will support that in your mind, even if you have to do mental gymnastics to get that conclusion
Moses is credited with writing Genesis but there's no reason that parts of it couldn't have been written already, and he simply compiled it into one book.
Obviously, if Moses knew how to write, this means the Israelites had an alphabet and a language he used. Which means that the information likely was not kept by word of mouth only. Not to mention that people back then were smart. They used their brains and memorized everything, so even if it qas spoken word only, it would have been pretty accurate. You may not know your genealogy 4 generations prior, but those people knew their roots.
Thanks for addressing this issue. I believe that that we CAN uphold the truth of Genesis, and that that upholds the Gospel. Answers in Genesis has a GREAT lecture about radiometric dating. Dr. Jason Lisle has great lectures about genetics and information theory.
Lisle is great for genetics, but better for the presuppositional approach: just presenting evidence to an unbeliever puts them in the position of presumed unbiased judgment... but they're not unbiased (we're all born hating God) and they are not the judge.
I disagree with the framing. I don't think that Christians on either side of the question of evolution are denying the truth of Genesis.
There is no truth to be found in genesis. It is a fictional story.
@@John_Fisher impossible. If you believe evolution it cannot intermingle with scripture.
@@John_Fisher I would respond that you are fundamentally unaware of the claims and substance of Darwinian evolution.
Whales were designed the way they were based on the function they need to serve. Why they are not sharks is because not everything can be a shark and supply it’s function to the echo system. Without whales the echo system would be out of balance
Boss interview. It really has given me a lot to think about
"This is the Bee! I don't care about any of that." * Picks up SHE HER mug *
Speaking as a Christian, this feels like a real mischaracterization of sophisticated "evolutionsists" or just people that believe evolution had a role to play in the development of the world. The research and results be describes doesn't really seem to counter "evolution," it seems to counter those who say "all development and adaption was due to random chance and nature favoring that random chance forever over generations," and that is the very surface level childish view of evolution.
I'm not arguing or advocating for evolution either, it just felt like the conversation was a mix of, "well things are complicated and beautiful so that must mean God," and the mentioning of evidence that rebutts a strawman view of evolution. That's all fine, well, and good, I guess it just wasn't what I went in expecting. :/
That's because the incredible precision of all creation refutes even the possibility of evolution. Evolution is in direct opposition to the Bible and there is no way possible to reconcile the two. Even the genius idiot Charles Darwin basically admitted that things such as the human eye could not be easily dismissed as random chance. Evolution is nothing more or less than an extremely complex lie that has worked for Satan to send millions to hell if not billions and to totally discredit God and the Bible. The very foundation of evolution is the ravings of a madman and I mean this sincerely. The incredible order of nature, the human body, animals, plants, and the entire universe disputes evolution in every way possible> Explain to me, if you can, how an eye or an ear could just happen over millions of years let alone an entire human body? I hope you are not so spiritually blind that you can see the utter lunacy of even that thought. Have you ever considered the mathematical precision that governs the universe? If evolution were true that would not be possible even in our wildest fantasies.
I am new to the Bee’s podcasts. This was my second listen. What a wonderfully informative interview! Makes me want to subscribe so I can see the rest of it. Will be asking my husband when he gets home! 👍🏼 Thanks for all you do, Babylon Bee!
If you find this drivel informative, real science will blow your mind!
You have to ask your husband?
How many of us discovered Creationism later in life and the realization hits you, “I’ve been lied to?” How many of us whew
Hell, I bought into evolution until about 3 or 4 years ago and it wasn't the word of God that brought me there (had that crammed down my throat at school every day for 12 years), but science, in the form of men like Steven Meyer and David Berlinski.
@@joxyjoxyjoxy1 Evolution is Science ... do you really expect Science to support the idea that a magic god poofed everything into existence.
You weren't lied to ... back then you just did not accept lies and now you do.
@@brettallen7632 uhhhh, pretty sure that's exactly what the big bang was.
God's not magic. He's power.
@@joxyjoxyjoxy1 Meyer and Berlinski have both been debunked many times. Berlinski, a mathematician, wrote a book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), aimed to redeem astrology as "rationalistic". Meyers has degrees in philosophy, not biology.
Well said sir it's good to see someone who pays attention
I think of a suntan or sunburn. Wouldn't that be an adaptation that reverts back to original once one is removed from the stimulus?
Every scientific discovery made about our vastly complex and awesome universe is a testament to the glory of God.
One of the best interviews on TBB podcast yet!
Loving the framed Carmen and Kevin Sorbo photos in the background. (in addition to the great interview!)
What was the Christian College she mentioned? ByLow?
Biola
Biola, but don't only take in my skewed perspective of the college.
@@emmascearce3495 I suspect that they had to teach evolution to get accredited. It's also likely that the leaders of the college went to college so long ago that they were never taught about creation either!
The human immune system also illustrates his theory, the adaptability and all the capacities of the body to change
90 I.Q. discussion here. For better understanding, read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century by James Shapiro, and Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. But most here are probably fine with this level of discussion.
Nice interview and guest, subscribed and shared.
2:00 as we say in Pearlman YeC Torah/scriptural testimony is the 'owner's manual' direct from The One who alone had/has 100% perspective.
Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.
where we cover many of these issues and much more.
5:00 just like early day 5 'fish' Dagei Hayam aquatic life may include whales, so too mid-day 5 'birds' ophei shamayim avian founding kinds may include bats. See the list of non-kosher avian kinds, in the 5 books of Moses, that includes bats.
That poor boomer when you ask about X-men. He has no clue.
I love Dr. G. Thanks for having him on.
Right on. Truthfully this is a great video.
God, the father of Jesus, our Lord in heaven is the creator. Jesus came later to forgive us sinners.
I think that God made whales vs fish and birds vs bats just to prove his genius; that he could make different kinds of creatures to fill any niche in the environment.
What I really want to know is: Do the blind cave fishes' offspring have eyes after they are brought to the surface?
And he made the platypus just to laugh at taxonomists!
Yes, blind cave dwelling fish will develope eyes after a few months out of the cave.
The biggest error with this interview: if we had a time machine, we wouldn’t go back and meet Darwin to debate the issue, we’d go back 10,000 years and settle the issue. 😆
Woah. I've never thought of that before. I guess I'll become an atheist now.
You'd only need to go back 2023 years...
@@mirandahotspring4019 That would be cool to see what life was like during the Roman Empire, but that wouldn't help solve the creation debate, since recorded history sits at about 3000 B.C.
@@amyclutter7259 r/whoosh
@@S.h-comma.to.the.top-Dynasty Sorry, your comment blew right over my head. I overshot the date because there is difference of opinion on the exact date among young earthers. I suggested a time when we could go back and either see evolution happening or an expanse of darkness and an eternal God.
Interesting thoughts 🤔 Thanks for sharing 👍♥️
Submarines have propellers.
Great job, Dr. G!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
No it conflicts with the ridiculous story of Genesis. Even fundamentalist PhD's. Amazing how education can be blinded by fanaticism. So not one science but all the genres of science are wrong and creationism and Genesis is correct. I have touched on this many times with my own vids. We may not know exactly how everything was created--but we know for fact all genres of science that it wasn't in six days and that a global flood never happened. The only people who believe this nonsense are fanatics in fundamentalism and the few rogue researchers who are biased as they are fanatics first and scientists second. Cheers, DCF
The science isn’t wrong, the worldviews and related assumptions are.
I looked at both sides of the argument and saw that by proof by contradiction made the billions of years/evolutionary (not mutations and natural selection change in allele frequency genetic drift etc..., but evolution meaning new proteins "machines" de novo) story telling impossible. So now i am teaching maths/physics from a Biblical perspective. Excellent interview.
Dafuq? What contradiction? You presented your personal incredulity and then labeled it as a contradiction of science? How stupid/dishonest are you, really?
What evidence does against Evolution? You don;' seem to understand natural selection at all. Nor are you even trying to.
Your comment alone is enough evidence to show you're unfit to teach anyone about anything.
You mean you couldn't understand it so switched your studies to maths and physics.
How does one pose a serious question about something they refer to as a faith?
Because our faith is based on the evidence of the things that we see. I don't believe in what some call "blind faith."
@@bbgun061 that’s not examining evidence, that’s making rationalizations.
@@AMC2283 You don't know the evidence I've examined or the process that got me to this point.
@@bbgun061 hey it makes no difference to me if someone’s religious or why. But I guarantee you your religion doesn’t teach evolution, which is exhaustively verified.
@@AMC2283 By verified, do you mean that it's been observed? I don't think it has, or that it's possible to observe.
I have two initial problems with evolution:
First, DNA encodes information, and information always comes from an intelligent source. There is no way that a random process like mutation could create more information. Part of the information in DNA is the code for creating DNA and all the machinery to copy it. How could the first living cell possibly have had that functioning machinery at the start?
That brings us to two: Irreducible complexity. There are thousands of molecular machines inside the cells of every living creature. Those machines are made of multiple proteins, which are themselves made of many amino acids. Many of these machines cease to function if even one of their proteins is missing or malformed. (The bacterial flagella motor is a good example of this.)
Now, evolution supposes that random mutations gradually cause new structures to form that provide a benefit to the organism. If the mutation is a benefit, then it can be passed on to the next generation. But these molecular machines can't be formed by a single change. Even if a single mutation could cause a new protein to be formed, that protein would be useless until all of the other parts of the machine are present. So that mutation wouldn't be advantageous and wouldn't get passed on! So how can a machine which requires multiple parts be produced by evolution? It can't! It gets worse because proteins are made of hundreds of amino acids, and require at least that many base pairs of DNA to encode them. So a single mutation won't create a new protein, probably just a malformed protein which is useless, and often harmful to the organism.
The truth is that God, the master engineer, designed the information system and every kind of organism. He encoded the DNA copying mechanisms. He even put in error-correcting systems and redundancy into the genetic code! He designed systems to turn on and off certain genes in response to external stimuli. He created every kind with the flexibility and adaptability to thrive in every ecological niche on the planet. He gave them the ability to reproduce 'after their kinds.' For example, dogs have in their DNA the information for an extreme variety of breeds, but they still always produce dogs.
I pray that you will carefully consider what I've said. I look forward to reading your response.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation.
Not accepting evolution is based on ignorance. Creationists have their own ridiculous versions of evolution which real biologists don’t use. The real scientific version of Evolution has been used in medical research for the past 120 years. If you know a diabetic the only reason they’re alive is because of evolution. Doctors used pig or cow insulin for human diabetics until the 1980s and there are many many many example of evolution being used directly in medical research, and a type of natural selection used engineering, architecture, and computer science ! Remember that scientists get their answers from nature and nature , being God’s Creation , doesn’t lie!
Lazy ignorant rubbish.
Have you tried reading books?
Yes! Absolutely It says that God is a liar.
Science is science. Religion is religion. Teach science in science class and religion in religion class.
Agreed, evolution would be removed insanely. Unfalsifiable, unobservable untestable, unrepeatable stories are not science.
Science is now religion. If science was left science, evolution wouldn’t be taught as truth. It would still be taught, just not proposed as the only acceptable explanation.
@@ryankelly9032 how about teach what is true. Truth is not divided.
@@chrisanderson5317 then evolution wouldn’t be taught at all, because it isn’t true
Isaiah 55:8 says God ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than out thoughts. God is limitless He can do anything. So if He wants to make a whale it is nothing for Him to do so.
Evolution is a false theory we need to evolve past. It’s a joke, it’s always been a joke, and it always will be a joke. Just like a bird has always been a bird, and will always be a bird.
The fact that its a scientific theory alone proves it's not false, rather a unending study in biological diversity.
@@infinity7306 that’s completely idiotic, you can make up any scientific theory, being a theory does not prove it to be true, it only means you will spend forever trying to prove it true until you find sufficient evidence to prove it false. The pure lack of evidence alone proves it to be untrue.
@@ToolFoolz
Theory is the end goal for any idea in science. Theories explain the facts. The idea that matter is made of atoms is still just a theory. Same with germs.
@@infinity7306 that’s simply not accurate, proof of theory through repeated conclusive trials is how we reach fact. Being able to replicate exact outcomes.
@@ToolFoolz
You don't know what you are talking about, a simple google search will explain the hierarchy of ideas in science. I am not wasting my time on someone who doesnt understand grade school science terms.
Claiming Earth is 6,000 years old and humans hung out with vegan dinosaurs isn't stupid at all! 🤣
There's no reason one can't believe in evolution and believe in god. Evolution is just part of gods plan, he put it into effect.
He makes good points. I like how he describes the book of Genesis as historical.
Oh come on! There's nothing historical in Genesis. It's an old myth!
@@mirandahotspring4019 you should be ashamed of yourself: women tend to be more religious than men and studies showed that, when given testosterone, old men became LESS religious, not more. In my experience alone I can tell you that yes: its generally women who are interested in the supernatural and the paranormal and sorcery and witchcraft, not men, and its usually the guys who offer the more skeptical and rational explanation to everything, not women. In fact, theres a similar study where researchers gave women testosterone and they became more skeptical than before
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov she is a troll. Do not waste your time
@@YoungEarthCreation I hope she's not serious: women generally are more religious and its really sad to see a non-religious one 😥...
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov might not even be a woman. Just a fake account who goes from Christian channel to channel talking nonsense. Already seen her blocked on 3 other channels and then I saw her spamming mine.
I was a Christian and an evolutionist when I went to college. One night I attended a presentation by a Christian Creationist. That night I became a Creationist. I majored in biology, both for my B.A. and my Master's degree. It was like swimming upstream. Add to that that I was one of the least smart of my biology graduate program, I was in deep doodoo. But, out of 26 biology graduate students, I was only one of 6 that got a degree before transfer, taking a hiatus, or dropping out. "Yay, God!"
For me, Creationism helped my faith early on when I would think, "Is believing in God really sane?" I would just think, "Look at the fossil record, Mike."
Good on you for standing firm in your faith and continuing your degree. I pray that you are able to glorify God with your biology studies, and teach others the truth of God's word!
… study further … the Bible describes a flat stationary “unmoved” earth! The spinning ball model is the foundation of evolution! Why do you deny one lie of evolution - but accept its predecessor, the Globe Lie??
Wait but if evolution isn't true than why did God give men nipples 😅? Seriously though, why did He?
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov 1. Biologically, babies have nipples before the before they are differentiated between male and female. 2. Purposely, many of us men have had sex. We can attest to the fact that nipples are sensual in men, just like women.
@@Bra-a-ains Actually I heard that nipple sensation varies even within members of the same sex
Whales are simply too big to extract the amount of oxygen out of the water, they get an immense amount from the atmosphere... But I suppose God just wanted to be creative and make things which are good.
Evolutionism = Coping method of an unrepentant sinner.
Whales and God don't care how Carol lynneus classifies things lolol
I love the stuff that ICR comes out with. Evolution is a fairy tale!
Absolutely 💯 ...where pumpkins 🎃 turn into chariots and lizards 🦎 into birds 🐦
This is great
Coming from someone who believes that the bible is inerrant, it is reasonable to say "I can’t reconcile [x] with what I know from the Bible, therefore I don’t believe it."
What is not reasonable is to say "I can’t reconcile [x] with what I know from the Bible, therefore it is irreconcilable," which the guest for this episode is teaching.
Well we are Christians after all and in our worldview God is real and the bible reveals Him. So this shouldn't be a surprise to you.
@@Scorpion-my3dv What do you think surprised me?
I took as a given that God is real and the Bible reveals Him. That's why I said that I agree that it is reasonable to say "I can’t reconcile [x] with what I know from the Bible, therefore I don’t believe it."
I love Acts and Facts - great periodical!
You won't find many facts here!
I appreciate listening to Creationists talk at length, because it really shows just how unsupportable their beliefs are.
My favorite moment in this interview is when the Dr asks 'Can you interpret scripture without someone explaining it to you' and the interviewer immediately says 'that's how cults are started'. Exactly right! That's how creationism started! And then watching the doctor try to walk it back when he realizes he got the wrong answer.
To all Creationists reading: Young Earth creationism is not just false, it is a truly evil belief. It posits that God is a deceiver, who tinkers with physics in order to trick us, who hid dinosaur fossils to make us think dinosaurs existed. It tells us that faith and reason are in conflict. And yes, it drives many many people away from the light.
You think dinosaurs didn't even exist? Lol, okay bud.
I don't know of a single creationist who thinks dinosaur don't exist. Neither do they believe that faith and reason are in conflict. Creationism is the original belief that comes from the plain reading of the text. Cults don't come from a plain reading of the texts. Cults come when you deny the plain reading and you attribute secret meanings to vague prophecies and mysteries. And let's not forget it was the "cult" of evolution that replaced God with nature. Have you ever thought that the science we are given is the science the evolutionists want us to hear? They ignore or silence anything that doesn't fit. They have been hiding the minority report for almost 200 years now.
All I know is that: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist.
@@jzarbaugh "I don't know of a single creationist who thinks dinosaur don't exist."
Unless I'm missing a comment that UA-cam is not (it has been known to happen for whatever reason), the person saying "You think dinosaurs didn't even exist?" Was making that accusation to the original commenter who was not a creationist.
@@John_Fisher I was also addressing the original commenter. He actually says that a young earth creationist would have to believe that God is a deceiver who:
1. Tinkered around with the lad of physics to confuse us. I suppose he is implying that what we know from physics is contrary to YEC, therefore God intentionally gave us information that would steer us away from creationism for some reason.
2. Hid dinosaur bones to make us believe that dinosaurs existed. I can only assume he things that dinosaurs are in direct conflict with young earth creationism. That is absolutely not the truth. In fact, most creationists believe that the creatures “leviathan” and “behemoth” referenced in the Bible sound a lot like dinosaurs.
Man created the Bible
Bingo
Man created evolutionism too. Faith based all the same
Man 'edited' the Record.... as men desiring power always do.... trouble is they could edit but not destroy the intent.....
You're witnessing this corrupt collusion in everything around you today.... but Truth keeps surfacing no matter what it gets buried under.....
The TRUTH will set you Free..... even throughout all your kicking, screaming and denying.....
Facades crumble... Truth endures unchangingly.... yesterday, today and tomorrow.
That's a Hell of a bet you got going on.... a little too resembling Russian Roulette to me.... it's your game tho..... if you're right... I win.... but if I'm right... I win....
Like my odds better....
TTFN
Adaptation!!:)..
The meaning of the word evolution doesn't even exist.. (Self brought forth)
BB lol
sept In the beginning God-created.
At about 14":45, It was natural selection, it wasn't evolution... Priceless! Natural selection is one of the drivers of evolution!
Natural selection can cause adaptation, but it can't create new information. Evolution requires new information to be created, so where does that information come from?
@@bbgun061 mutations can add information.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, studies show that when old men were given testosterone they became LESS religious, not more (which would explain why women generally are more religious than men) and that when women were given testosterone they became more skeptical than before
you need to get your hormones in order you have a lot of testosterone for a woman its very abnormal
Interesting and entertaining interview
I love this guy 💗
The one thing I never argue about the age of the earth. The important thing is God created.
The only part of Evolutionary Theory that could conflict with the Biblical Narratives on History...
Is the base Human Assumption that Evolution somehow explains the Origin of Life. _(Maybe the further Human Assumptions that any past Species, needed Evolution to Arrive on the Scene. )_
The parts of Evolution that can be proven by Scientists?
No Conflict as such.
......
To paraphrase a relatively recent meeting of Evolutionary Expert's, and their conclusion on this topic?
Evolution, can offer explanation for the *_Survival_* of the Fittest...
Not the *_Arrival_* of the Fittest.
_(Essentially admitting that Evolution doesn't really explain Life's Origins at all._ _Nonliving materials don't evolve. )_
"I've been lied to"
Yes, we all were lied to. Thank God for creationists who are exposing lies.
Creation is the lie is based on nothing but wishful thinking. This guy is grifting you.
Yes
Thank God for people like Michael Behe. What he has done with a microscope 🔬 is just as important as Niicolaus Copernicus discoveries through the telescope 🔭
Science is finally catching up to refuting this ridiculous worldview of Evolution.
@@brettallen7632 wow i think you need more estrogen your testosterone is very high for a woman
He seems a nice guy BUT totally indoctrinated
I have never understood how anyone can believe in evolution. Even before I fully believed in God, I knew there had to be a creator. It’s all too complex.
One can believe in a Creator and accept evolution. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Because its been observed in labs.
All the dna backs it
And all the fossil record has and continues to fit into the model.
Evolution is solid.
@pear tree "All the DNA backs it" - false. DNA is complex Information and we don't empirically know where it came from. But since Information is usually from a mind, we're justified in thinking that DNA is from a mind. The fossil record is better at showing catastrophism (like a global flood) than showing millions of years. We have no good evidence of ape-to-human evolution. Natural selection is about dropping traits and adapting, ie top-down instead of bottom-up. Even saying "evolution is solid" is a massive stretch, but that's better than the dogmatic assertions we usually hear. Peace. 🙏
@Charlotte Martel That is true. It is. I guess the real questions for our purposes, in line with this video, are: is Darwinian evolution true? And what are the implications for the Christian?
@@fridge3489 the fossil record also backs evolution...i forgot that big one thanks...
Sooo what bit of dna disproves evolution.
I have yet to hear this one...cant wait.
Wait... I need to watch the whole video, but are people actually questioning evolution? God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. God created the physical world with a set of rules that we later discovered as "Physics". Evolution was a pre-planned part of the universe laid out by God's rules.
Yes, they are, and their assertions are ridiculous. Thank you for being one of the few sensible voices here.
Evolution means millions of years of death before Adam. But God called his creation good from the word go. Do you see? If there were humans before Adam, they were dying. But death came into the world through Adam. Do you see? It's the fall and subsequent death that Jesus saves us from. Call the origins into question and you by default call into question the need for a savior. The story of evolution does not mean there's no God, but the story of evolution is anti-biblical. This leads people to leave the faith, since the foundations have been attacked. Honestly I'm interested in truth. Jesus himself trusted Genesis. Could it be that evolution is false?
@@Charlotte_Martel At least say why you believe they're ridiculous.
So God planned to use the process to create humanity (and all living things) that atheists would develop thousands of years later? Wow... but doesn't that contradict what Romans 5 says: that "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..."? How can the Bible be true AND we accept the Darwinian theory of man's origin?
The big supporters of evolution generally are willing to admit that the main reason they believe in the religion of evolution is they cannot admit there is a creator God. If they admit there is a creator God then they will have to be accountable to Him. And that is not acceptable. If you redefine evolution enough, you can make it fit into your faith, but the Biblical account of creation will always fit better.
I went the opposite way. When I grew in my faith, I came to believe that God used evolution to create the world, and it is amazing! In fact I find it just as miraculous.
It contradicts scripture though because Genesis says death came into the world after sin. So million year old fossils....
If you really believe that you did not grow in your faith, you shrank. It means you do not believe virtually any of the Bible can be trusted on any subject. It means you have put your human and fallible intellect against what is so clearly revealed in holy scripture. In other words, you do not believe the Bible is God's revelation to man and that God is not the true author of all scripture. You do not believe the Genesis account of creation nor do you believe what the Bible reveals about Jesus Christ whom it clearly reveals is our Creator. I question if you know Christ as your Lord And Savior. Evolution is just one of Satan's big lies and you've bought into it. Evolution has nothing to do with man and we have never evolved. It is utter lunacy. I can't believe you got 7 likes. If you can't trust what God's word says about creation I seriously question whether you have ever believed what it says about Jesus Christ and the gospel. Have you actually studied what the Bible says about creation and the Creator, Jesus Christ? If so, you most assuredly do not believe any of it.
Evolution has no scientific basis
@@georgewagner7787do you believe the earth is flat too?
@@evanevanf4033these are unrelated positions. Most creationists would say that scripture excludes a flat earth, or is at least ambiguous on the issue. We can do demonstrations in real time that the earth is round.
You never get scientists telling us evolution can't happen. Still no creationist can find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
False. Creationist scientists are always saying that advantageous bottom-up mutations are a problem for Darwinian evolutionists, and they're always saying that creationism has an answer: Darwinian macro-evolution isn't true and top-down adaptation/natural selection is.
@@fridge3489 That's not what I said is it? Which scientists are saying evolution doesn't happen?
Still no one can find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix. If you can, let's hear it.
And silence.....
@@Ozzyman200 You wrote "You never get scientists telling us evolution can happen."
I think you meant, You never get scientists telling us evolution can't happen.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Good catch, thank you.
Evolution has no basis.
You have no dick.
@@infinity7306 Sore loser.
The evolution theory is not a scientific theory.
(I am surprised by how many people do not know this.)
Darwinian evolution certainly isn’t. There is falsifiable evidence of “micro-evolution”.
@@thomasb4467 I was pointing out the fact that the evolution theory is not a scientific theory.
I hate it when the fake science people or the anti-science guys try to pass fake science off as if it were real science. And I really hate it when they teach their false science to school kids.
Stop lying to children, evolutionists!
@@jakehickox7275
I just wish there wasn’t the obvious double standard. Apparently evolution doesn’t have to be falsifiable or observable because scientists think it’s true regardless.
@@thomasb4467 Luckily, there are many scientists that know that the evolution theory is not a scientific theory.
And, sadly, there are some 'scientists' that don't seem to be educated enough in the basics to know that the evolution theory is not a scientific theory.
"because I say so" is not an argument.
Get ken Hovin on there
Thanks for the whale question. They look designed to live in water. To have a land animal "transformed" in to a water dweller would take retrofit which is not evident in the genetic code..
Try opening a biology book sometime, buddy. You have no idea what you are talking about.
No true, and what about their vestigial features? The remnants of a pelvis and hind legs.
@@mirandahotspring4019 they are essential for reproduction
@@danielmandigo636 There is some research to show they have been retained for that reason, to help anchor the penis in males, but the evidence does point to them once being functional limbs.
@@mirandahotspring4019 that can be rationalized but so could most anything. Genitic evidence and fossil evidence generally do not align very well. Often similar bones come from dissimilar genes and vice-versa. While repurposing seems like a good argument it quickly becomes a logistical problem in most cases leaving many unanticipated problems. Improving and modifying designs is much more complicated than is generally thought especially with complicated systems and specialized systems.
🤦♀️ Oh dear!
Please invite Dr. Kent Hovind.
While I respect him for defending the young earth position, Kent Hovind has some pretty significant blind spots.
The Holy Bible is indeed the result of God inspired writing, but Evangelicals/Creationists usually MISUNDERSTAND and MISINTERPRET it.
If you analyze GENESIS in the original Hebrew, it becomes clear that the first thing God did in this telling is NOT the creation of the Universe, but the hovering over the waters and speaking "Let there be Light." The nested grammar of Genesis means that the part that says "In Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" is a RETELLING of previous events.
It literally means that the creation of the "Heavens and the Earth" happened way long ago before the "hovering over the waters" part of the verse.
So thinking that you can simply trace back the genealogy to Adam and claim that the Earth was created 6000 years ago is a DOUBLE fallacy, first because Genesis isn't about the creation of the Universe, but about the creation (or rather re-creation) of habitable conditions on the planet (after a previous cataclysmic event), and secondly, the age numbers given in the genealogy are really just a surface story to enable the writer to hide important numerical data in plain sight - aka it's not about the age of these people, it's something entirely more important.
So in a nutshell, while the Universe is indeed a creation of GOD, the creationist people are actually wrong, because they don't even understand what they are reading, and naturally they also can't convince atheists with their interpretation, BECAUSE IT'S WRONG.
No, mate.
@@fridge3489 Yes, dude.
What is this "more important" truth hidden in plain sight? Do you at least have a link to share? The Bible does speak plainly about Adam being a literal person. It also tells us that death came to us through the first Adam while salvation came through the second Adam (Jesus). Romans eight speaks of the entire earth suffering as a result of the fall- longing to be restored. Please clarify- in order for your theory to be correct, would there have to be death before Adam? This theory throws many New Testament writings on their heads and creates a lot of confusion.
@@jzarbaugh look, I can't claim I have figured out everything in the Bible, not by far. Of course I believe Adam and Eve exists, I'm just saying the age given in the book for the Elders is not necessarily the correct way to determine when the Universe or even Earth was created. Adam and Eve were sinners, but their sin may be an allegory for what they actually did, because we couldn't even understand what their crime was if the Bible would not use the tree and the forbidden fruit. There's this: Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you. -Deuteronomy 32:7 Now, if you take the age of the Elders at the time they begot their first born sun, from Adam to Abraham, and add the numbers together, you might get a clue what GOD maybe was really telling us.
@@jzarbaugh why are you subscribed to Ben Shapiro? The guy hates Jesus. I recommend you subscribe instead to these people: Dr. Michael Brown, Sam Shamoun, Christian Prince, Dr. Michael Heiser
Evolution is supported by mountains of facts. God supported by none.
For Example???
Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight white man.
God in his infinite wisdom
Remember what Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist has once frankly admitted: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is
unthinkable."
He was an anatomist, not an evolutionary biologist and he was born in the 19th century jack.
Arthur Keith died in 1955. That's almost 70 years ago! We have learned a lot since then, all supporting evolution.
@@mirandahotspring4019 Hahaha 😆 Exactly the opposite is true 👍 You should read more! Even the late very most passionate evolutionist, like sir Arthur, had to debunk lots of old school Darwinian misconceptions and established the so called Neo Darwinism. You should look no further to the Genetics and Information sciences 😉 Here's just one of the thousands, contemporary scientific discoveries: ua-cam.com/video/7XJvcJ4_L10/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/4o__yuonzGE/v-deo.html
Nah, there is no reason that evolution can't be part of creation.
@@agape7628 Nah, just not true. I wouldn't care if it were true, but it is not
Can you give any observable example of an animal evolving from one kind of animal to another kind?
@@markhastings9037 Lol. You truly are ridiculous. The tragic thing is that you repulse people away from Christ with your idiocy.
@@markhastings9037 I don't think that the question of whether there is an observable example of an animal evolving from one kind to another is relevant to the original commenter's point. He did not claim that evolution has been directly observed, or even that it is true; he only claimed that evolution is not incompatible with creation.
Evolution is science, creation is magic, if you can't see how those are incompatible, then you are not equipped mentally to have this conversation.
This guest talking about science is a joke.
I’m a Christian Biologist and this was incredibly painful to watch.
Why?
@@thomasb4467 First, all of his arguments presented here were not science-based. God is the inventor of science, we can trust the process to bring us to Truth. Second, he seems to have a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution. “Random mutation” is just one of many proposed mechanisms by how evolution works, the rest are quite predictable, similar to gravity or any other measurable mechanism. As a Christian, I don’t think mutations are random. I believe they are God-directed, or designed, if you prefer. It’s not that he’s wrong about everything he said, but this does far more to ostracize Christians from being taken seriously by anyone who’s taken a basic biology class in college. Just my two cents.
@@soldieroftruth77
I’m not well versed in science.
When you say evolution are you referring to molecules to man evolution? Are you referring to adaptations or variations in kinds (using Darwin’s term)? All of it?
@@soldieroftruth77 That doesn’t really explain what your problem was with his argument was. His argument was primarily from Scripture not from science - do you think that makes it invalid?
@@thomasb4467 Biological evolution can ONLY occur with existing life, so no, I don’t think there’s any evidence for chemical evolution. Life has to exist first, and then evolution can do its thing. Our understanding of evolution itself has also “evolved” considerably since Darwin. I’m definitely somewhere in the camp of intelligent design but ultimately I don’t get hung up on specific mechanisms because all things are possible with God, and he can design things however he chooses.
I suspect that some of the ridicule in this comment section is from people who are afraid; afraid that God is real and holds people accountable. As ever, does the science affirm The Bible? Simply blindly saying "no" is not good enough; creationist scientists have the same evidence as evolutionist scientists.
Nah it’s from people who studied evolutionary biology and are aware of exactly how nonsensical and dishonest his arguments are. It’s truly laughable.
Everyone who denies evolution because they believe it conflict with Genesis have missed the point.
Genesis is not the physical creation of the universe. It is the point of the creation of mankind in which he is gifted ‘internal divinity’ by God and becomes self-aware.
Adam becomes human out of the animal homosapian herd and after trying to mate with his first wife picks Eve, who he makes self-aware.
There are plenty of other human-like animals around, but Adam and Eve discover their mortality. Each day of creation is the self realisation of the heavens, the earth etc. All this leads to understanding one’s self within the concept of reality.
This also answers the biggest flaw in traditional dogma, which is ‘who do Cane and Abel’ marry? There are plenty of genetically suitable humans available, but they have to receive God’s divinity.
There is no conflict between scripture and science. It’s just understanding the whole bit about The Word!
Where is anything you said in Genesis? And obviously, Cain and Abel (if he had a chance to get married before becoming the 1st victim of gun violence) married their sisters... you only see familial marital restrictions much later in biblical history, when folks' DNA had degraded and become diluted enough to make birth defects a real possibility.
@@brettschlee7090 so I misquote Genesis and you quote it’s “gun violence”?
Fair play.
I would respectfully ask, then, if Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, then who the hell did they marry?
Don’t tell me - their sisters that God ignored because ‘patriarchy’ despite Eve and (was it Ruth or Rebecca). And I guess God was fine with direct incest even though almost identical DNA causes horrific diseases.
I give you scripture in harmony with science and your shoot it down because your ‘bastardised’ version of a mistranslated document does not marry with your self loathing and doubt given by a truly loving God.
May I restate:-
“In the beginning was the Word. And God was with the Word. And God was the Word”
The “Word” (in my humble mind) is internal divinity or self-realised or sentient intelligence.
Not only life and dumb beasts, but knowledge and part divinity. The very reason old Lucifer got annoyed with his loving master. The very reason Satan has strived to create the fall of man through knowledge and material wealth. The very reason people like you ignore the Truth in front of their eyes and use knowledge combined with ignorance to create dogma that tricks them into turning away from our one and true Loving Father.
(Now I sound like a weirdo Christian that totally misses the whole point of the thing)
I apologise and hope to be able to love ya!
@@pazuzutru-truluv7094 First, the gun violence comment was pure satire... in America, guns get blamed for everything! Have you seen the Bee's latest vid, "AR-15 on trial"? It's hilarious! As I said, in the first comment, God created humanity with perfect DNA and only after many generations did you see the birth defects we associate with incest. That's why Abram married his half-sister, Jacob married his 1st cousins, etc. And lastly, your treatment of John 1:1 is not, in any way, accurate: the Word in John 1 is Jesus... you see this in vs. 14 ("the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory..."). You and I are not divine.. .we are creatures of dust, who need God for every breath we take and owe Him our entire beings; our love, honor and obedience.
@@brettschlee7090 I am not a man of scripture and could bow to your knowledge of deeply flawed and bastardised documentation.
Then again I can listen to the Word
Of Jesus.
He gave us two messages.
Firstly the “let unto Ceaser” bit that separates state from church. Pretty conclusive I would argue.
Secondly (and I paraphrase) “let no man be the ass if another” - from John 2(I know), but in this JC tells us to listen to our hearts and not be told what to do. Whatever we are told we must listen to the voice of God that is blessed within all of us. To do otherwise is to fall pray to Satan. I understand you may profit or justify your very existence by turning away from this message.
Judaism gave us the Law. How to behave as a society, but Jesus saw the corruption of man and brought us back to our fundamental selves.
Now you can shoot me down in flames and words of scripture, which seems to be what you are doing, but I argue we should look to our hearts and judge accordingly.
If you know better that your fellow man then good luck to you, but I will refuse to agree.
You are no nearer to God than me and you must follow your path, but I totally refuse to listen to anything but my conscience and my love of God.
I cannot do harm as me, but if people follow my word rather than God’s Word and their own hearts then what hope for any of us.
I could say “shame on you”, but I don’t because like me you and everyone else is flawed deeply and subject to their own egos. Thank God Satan has failed on my behalf. Let me hope you have already turned away from ego, desire, profit and power over other man’s thoughts!
@@pazuzutru-truluv7094 Jesus told us to "Listen to your heart"? I think that was the 80's band Roxette. ua-cam.com/video/yCC_b5WHLX0/v-deo.html
73books bro
Evangelism is different for everyone. For one who doesn’t believe in God, trying to get them on sin won’t work. There’s no one solution.
So many disappointing straw man attacks on genuine Christians who understand these issues differently. The Babylon Bee should broaden their interview base on this issue - like John Walton or Hugh Ross (they had Hugh but didn't really let him talk about OEC vs. YEC). Also, Sam should not do the interviews, since he clearly is the one pushing a particular viewpoint compared to the other Bee members, going so far as to call those who disagree with him "goats" as he did in this interview.
Seriously, no one in this video remotely understands evolution. This is why St Augustine warned that the Bible was not a science book and should not be used as such. This just makes Christianity look stupid.
It is not a science book, but everywhere it talks about science it is correct.
I am always struck by the contrast between the efforts of Darwin critics, who focus on evidence, and the efforts of Darwin defenders, who focus mostly on attacking Darwin critics!
@@markhastings9037
"everywhere it talks about science it is correct"
Nowhere in the book does it talk about science, as modern science didnt even exist at the time. But what it does do is misrepresent or get wholly wrong, things we know from science to be accurate information. One example being the striped cows being born by their mother looking at a striped sheet. That is not how genetics works.
Run from the man in this video. Run. This is Dinosaurs-On-Noah's-Arc guy. Run.
who r these people?
So because a whale survives in water, God? And because Emma or what's her name is 'perfect' or uh, well composed, God? This is ridiculous, where is the logic? I'm not denying God but what is this nonsense
"JUST ANOTHER", "CRIMINAL CULT".
It is ridiculous that this guy believes his research somehow dubunks evolotion, even if he gets the exact results he wants, he us just describing one method that animals can change. It does not make it the only method.
But which processes are more plausible. That's the point.
@@fridge3489 No, that is not a relevant question at all.
He is not even exploring something new, it is gene expression which has been widely known about for at least four decades and fits perfectly in evolutionary theory. They are not mutually exclusive.
@@spindoctor6385, Evolution has no mechanism. Every scientific discovery shows more clearly that unguided, accidental processes cannot do what Evolution needs.
Evolution debunks itself. Dr. G. is just explaining how God created all creatures to adapt- which is the one thing we can truly observe.
@@jzarbaugh You never witnessed god do anything.
This is kinda embarrassing. Sigh.
Atheism is leftist nonsense.
I love the Babylon Bee, but these recent 'interviews' by pseudo-scientific 'experts' are *painful*. They are modern day equivalents of the Holy Office sentencing Galileo for his heresy of declaring that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Wrong&ignorant! Galileo was a true believer, like all of the founders of modern science, fighting the corrupt Catholic gang that was anything but Christian! Do your homework better next time 😉
How? Science can be questioned.
@@gabenorman747 yes, absolutely. Scientifically. 'Because of my interpretation of someone else's interpretation of events happening millenia ago' isn't compelling.
God gave us free will and a brain. Neither is useful without the other. Of course evolution fits in our faith. That our scientific understanding may not fit our biblical understanding speaks for our limited intellect, not for a rejection of God.
Could it be possible that our limited intellect is hindering our scientific understanding in the same way you suggest it hinders our biblical understanding?
@@madelinehoppenstedt7782 Maddy: I talk to God every day. He answers me every day. Whether He really answers me, or I answer me, or He helps me find answers can be debated, but regardless, our conversations help me understand my limited understanding of so many things. The limitation is in me, not in God, and I am comfortable accepting this. Vaya con Dios. - BL
@@BruceLinderDPT So true, we humans are the limiting factor in the equation. Keep up the faith and stay in the Word, friend.
Literally the most idiotic thing I’ve watched. Between him laughably strawmanning evolution to his nonsense about what we have and have not seen evolutionarily within the human race, this is and excellent way to ensure you are laughed at by anyone with an elementary knowledge of the subject matter.
thanks for clarifying it was literally, not figuratively .... be wise, stranger :p
@Agape Okay, here's a straw man: accepting (not believing) in the scientific evidence of evolution inevitably leads one to eugenics. Completely wrong. Guliuzza also states that science teaches that we evolved randomly. This could not be further from the truth.
@Agape A few things. First, he posits we would have seen evolution in humans over the last few thousand years and we haven’t. This is incorrect. First, we have seen evolution in humans, or did you think all the different ethnicities just appeared out of nowhere? What we haven’t seen is speciation. We can all still breed successfully with each other. Charlotte mentioned the “randomness” which is also one I was going to say. It’s not random, it’s selected for through environmental pressure. Nature doesn’t make choices, things happen and those with adaptations that can survive and thrive and those without, die and go extinct.
There are places where we’ve seen birds speciate from a common ancestor due to differing food supplies. We have watched macro evolution occur in microbes.
The theory of evolution is robust. His treatment of it as if it’s just a bunch of philosophers musing and not actually supported by troves of anthropological, archaeological and genetic evidence is nothing short of preposterous.
So much for your presumption. Maybe you can demonstrate some grace and admit you were wrong?
@Jason Hynchlyff Perhaps the most frequently repeated mistake that evolutionists make in their attacks on creation is to assert that ‘natural selection’ and ‘speciation’ prove evolution and disprove the biblical account of origins. Their bait-and-switch arguments imply that creationists believe in ‘fixity of species. But no reputable creationist denies speciation-in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology. In the previous chapter, I showed that the real issue is whether evolution can explain the increase of genetic information content-enough changes to turn microbes into men, not simple change through time.
Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e., a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring but that cannot so breed with a different biological species. But creationists point out that the biblical ‘kind’ is larger than one of today’s ‘species.’ Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments. Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way-hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations).
@@vladim73 I appreciate the honest effort to communicate. I do understand the argument you’re making, and that was in fact my understanding of the creationist argument. The problem that I have with is that there’s no evidence for it, in the biological or genetic record. There is evidence that we live in an anti-entropic pool, and that thermodynamics combined with natural selection explain the development of life from microorganisms to our current variety. The creationist arguments that “evolution can’t explain X” tend to fall into one of two categories: A) The strawman (for example the how do you explain the increase in information?) or B) The presumption that the incompleteness of evolutionary theory is evidence of its falsehood. This ends up functioning as a sort of “god of the gaps” argument where as new discoveries are made, the space for alternatives shrinks. So one must ask, are we finding more and more evidence to support evolutionary theory, or are we finding more and more problems with it as we go? And the answer is the former. It becomes more and more robust over time.
As an analogy, if I’m going in the right direction on a map, I’m going to see landmarks that signal to me I’m on the right path. If I’m not, the environment will begin to look foreign. So far, we’re seeing more and more landmarks. So for a competing theory there would have to be at least some evidence that’s a better fit, and thus far, there isn’t.
It aggregates me that you keep saying creationism. That is making it seem like it’s not true. It should be creation.
No. Next question.