How is L.I.F.E. the Best Evidence AGAINST Evolution?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2024
- What's the best evidence against (macro) evolution? In this video, Frank gives us 4 reasons why macroevolution just doesn't work using the extremely helpful L.I.F.E. acronym. Grab your pencil and get ready to take some notes!
📚 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀
Macro Evolution? I Don't Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set👉📱bit.ly/3GAcwQA), (MP3 Set 👉📱bit.ly/3GG59HE) and (mp4 Download Set 👉📱bit.ly/3zaL5LN)
Blog: If Evolution is True, Atheism is False 👉📱 crossexamined.org/evolution-t...
🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝
● Website: crossexamined.org/donate/
● PayPal: bit.ly/Support_CrossExamined_...
👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥
● Facebook: / crossexamined.org
● Twitter: / frank_turek
● Instagram: / drfrankturek
● Pinterest: pin.it/JF9h0nA
🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️
● Website: crossexamined.org
● Store: impactapologetics.com/
● Online Courses: www.onlinechristiancourses.com/
🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️
● iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
● Google Play: cutt.ly/0E2eua9
● Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_P...
● Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#Evolution #Christianity #Apologetics #Science
My testimony: After being an atheist for 8+ years, and "married" to another female, I got the urge one day to say out loud "IF there is an Almighty God that does NOT wish us pain or sorrow, please bring me truth, I wish to know you exist". Then God immediately started bringing me the answers I had been searching 8-11 YEARS for! I witnessed Him take control of my internet and the rest of my reality; He first proved to me that demons exist (I called them "inter-dimensional beings"), then He proved His own existence when He didn't have to, which I later found to be Jesus Christ. As soon as I found Jesus at the end of 2020, He IMMEDIATELY took away my transgenderism, bisexuality, depression, daily suicide attempts, self harm, bulimia and anorexia; and He did this all without me asking Him to, because THAT'S how merciful and loving He is! Praise God!💖
No such thing as an atheist. No such thing as sex, without a man
Our friends lost their at 19. Kind hearted young man who loved God wanted to be a preacher. Died suddenly from a brain tumor. Why? We have no idea. same family lost a sister in a hay bailer. Mother of 5 kids youngest was under a year. Why. No clue. These people found the strength to love a serve God. If they would of turned their back life would of been bitter and without purpose.
@NickyTheLesser I'm sorry for your loss unfortunately we all go through some sort of tragedy in our lives, we also lost a baby but we understand that every person or child that dies before their knowledge if good and evil goes to be with the Lord, we also have to remember we live in a world of sin and with free will, God doesn't always have to intervene, His letting life play out per say, I hope you can come back to God with a healed heart, if you ever did accept Christ as your Saviour know this, you're still His son/daughter and still saved but I do hope you come back and have a relationship with Him again. Take care
@@NickyTheLesser Who is the True and Sovereign GOD?
ANSWER -
Jesus Christ KNOWS
that the Creator is the only True and Sovereign God as written in John 17: 3
Who is Jesus Christ?
ANSWER -
Atheists and fanatics of all Christian and non-Christian Religions
are opposed, against, and DON'T BELIEVE
that
Jesus Christ is the One authorized and sent by the Creator from heaven to earth to preach and teach the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" to imperfect, suffering, and dying human beings
as written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26
What is the Creator's favor and reward for Followers and Believers of Jesus Christ?
ANSWER -
Atheists and fanatics of all Christian and non-Christian Religions
are opposed, against, and DON'T ACCEPT
that
all persons on earth who willingly submit to the authority of Jesus Christ and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as written in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26
are
the followers and believers of Jesus Christ on earth
who
will definitely be favored, honored, and rewarded by the loving, kind, and merciful Creator with ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe, secure, and peaceful earth without liars, slanderers, perverts, traitors, cowards, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8.
How will human beings live and exist on earth forever if they just turn into worthless and useless dusts after their deaths?
ANSWER -
Atheists and fanatics of all Christian and non-Christian Religions
MAY ACCEPT
that
all human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes, 3: 19 20 ; 9: 5, 6
but
are opposed, against, and just CAN'T ACCEPT
that
the Creator will not let his loving, kind, and respectful worshippers who died recently and thousands of years ago like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Moses, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's followers, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever,
instead,
in the right and proper time, and as written in John 11: 25, 26
he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom
and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
Of course God cares for your baby, just like he cares for you. Our understanding of why God allows, even when we’re doing the right thing, will always confuse us, because His understanding is not like ours. Do know, that God always keeps his promise either way. Your child is now pain free, not crying, or struggling, in eternal bliss running and playing with thousands of other children, where you can be too, one day. Don’t lose heart or hope. God has never left your side, because he said he wouldn’t. You have my condolences 💐.
This is awesome. As a former atheist until a few months ago I love having more and more of my previous false convictions that I took for granted shattered 😂
That is sweet to hear sister... God look after you...
I hope that 2024 is a sweet year for you 🙏
@@4LoveAndJustice Aw thank you. Same to you :) God bless you
I’m curious, what are the false convictions you are speaking of?
Glad to hear of your conversion. Would you like to share how it happened and how you were able to overcome your "atheist programming? (just using that as a playful dig on all those atheists that say religion is just programming by our parents or church.)
It’s strangely satisfying isn’t it 😂
Umm...can you say "Mic drop moment?!" WOW!! Dr. Frank is on fire with this one!
One useful math skill that should help anyone figure out the high unlikelihood of evolution is permutation. What are the chances that a certain order and combination occur? And you take it down to the microscopic level.
Why does it have to be a certain order? Why can't it just any combination resulting in the desired result?
@@friisteching3433 Then you won't have laws.
@@JiraiyaSama86 That made no sense to the question I asked.
@@friisteching3433 Why? If you scramble the DNA of a banana to any other different permutation, would the result still be a banana?
DNA has a very small threshold of changes that could occur and get a “workable” result. IE a result that wouldn’t be a biological mess.
Different eye color: fine
1 protein different: not fine
This was brilliantly put and one of the best concise summaries on the subject❤🙌May the Lord bless Dr Turek to keep doing these talks!
Please these people lie to you.
Ask him how we get genetic links that are only passed down through reproduction???? Easy question
Do you even care that irreducible complexity was proven wrong over a decade ago and michael behe doesn't even defend it in public science circles because they answered all of his hypothetical tests with actual experiments lol...
I would love longrr version of this topic!
For a few good laughs? Yes!
@@Bomtombadi1 Yeah, those questioners can be quite humorous.
@@TheGuy.. Frank’s answers are quite pathetic
@@Bomtombadi1 Anyone can say that about anything anyone says. Care to elaborate though?
@@TheGuy..
Frank was asked for his best evidence against evolution.
First he needs to demonstrate what these limits are and that they limit mutations to keep descendants of a species from evolving.
Somehow all the geneticists in the world have missed them but non genesticiat Frank seems to think he knows what they are.
I bet my house he can’t answer that.
Merry Christmas! Darwinism has a 0% success rate. Genesis 1 has a 100% success rate.
Actually Genesis 1 has been disproven. The Earth was very clearly not created "in the beginning".
@@Gek1177 you said the earth was very clearly not created "in the beginning?"
The only way anyone can rightly say the earth was not created in the beginning is if he has some means of observing what happened in the beginning. Atheists are not qualified to make that assessment. The documented history contained in Genesis stands unrefuted. Scripture is documented history and every claim that it makes which can be verified using the scientific method has been verified. Archeologists actually use the Bible as primary source material in understanding artifacts being unearthed in the Middle East today. Archeology is a field that specializes in both science AND history. That means people who reject scripture fit the category of observable science denying documented history deniers. Please accept observable science and documented history; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9). Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
@Gek1177 evidence rather than saying so, please?
@@codez6234 well, redshift proves that the universe is some 13 billion and radiometric dating proves that the Earth is like 4.5 billion and if you know anything about which number is bigger than the other number you'll notice that the Earth wasn't created "on the beginning".
@@Gek1177In the beginning, God created the Heavens (Space),…and the Earth
I found this wonderful Christian apologist channel several years back and I'm constantly listening to his new content RIVOTED!!
I also use the material in my Christian teaching!!
You're teaching incorrect information then....
@jacquelineharris6124 Merry Christmas. Yes even to you.
@oreally8605 That's a start anyway of discovering your humanity!!
Jesus came even for Jacqueline, borrowing from her phrasing!!
The proof of God's existence is undeniable, and everywhere you look, you see God's handiwork!
May Jacqueline find the peace and love and acceptance I enjoy!
Merry Christmas!!
@@oreally8605 happy holidays to you as well
@@salmonkill7 you address me by talking to someone else? You teach incorrect information and you're a weasel, thanks for demonstrating that to everyone.
Merry Christmas
Dr Turek is the athiest's worst nightmare. 😅😂. Thank you sir.
What about Kent Hovind?
Nightmare, in that atheists fear him?
I’m an atheist and his arguments are not convincing
@@drdisrespect5318
What about him?
@@drdisrespect5318As a Christian, I say Hovind is a fraud and a joke.
I saw something on Pinterest to the effect of "scientists know everything about the missing link except for the fact that it's missing." Also, I love the LIFE acronym. Thanks, Frank :)
"You can't trust every quote you read on the internet"
- Abraham Lincoln
Uh, what? St. Thomas Aquinas was a priest who lived in the 13th century. Also, the LIFE acronym is simply idiotic and it is based on outdated creationist arguments. Please study Biology and understand that evolution remains a fact.
@@kinggenius930 yeah I think I saw another quote that was actually by Thomas Aquinas and got it mixed up with this one 😅
This brainwashing... your pastors have deluded you into thinking that a bunch of complex acronyms, half of which you probably didn't understand (I know how evolution works and half those words didn't even make sense to me), is enough to dismiss decades of hard work and scientific breakthroughs. This is the same science that gives us medicine, technology, and basically everything else about the modern world. Why would evolution be such an exception? Because it happens to conflict with your specific religion that doesn't even make any sense? Yeah no. Please use your brain, don't fall for these peoples' lies. You probably also think that gay people are going to hell or that the Earth is only 6000 years old... really, is this REALLY more likely than everything science has been telling us for hundreds of years? I don't think so.
1800s are over, there's no missing link
Creation is fact
Lol... no it isn't.
@@mattslater2603well… whether you’re arguing from the point of biogenesis and macro evolution or from the religious intelligent design theory, we all exist, and aren’t simply nothing, therefore in all theories we were at some point “created”. Taking nothing and making something requires creation.
@@mattslater2603
So shlatzy, do you "believe" from the 'goo' to 'you' and to 'Bonesy' too is true?
😂 *Laugh My freaking Face Off* 😂
The reasons he gives are valid, but are easily dismissed with a hand wave by evolutionists. Here's what cannot be dismissed: they claim populations of living things that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Ask them to cite it. NO one can, proving this claim is contrary to all of biology. Same for eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, digestive systems and so on. Be not deceived, people. If you don't reject the resurrection, which IS contrary to science, then don't be so quick to reject other things God says over things that are demonstrably anti-science.
Honestly, creation as described in the Bible has been disproven.
That's only if you insist it's literal.
Merry Christmas CE
God bless and Amen
An appendix to this wonderfully laid out proposition is related to micro evolution and the emergence of life. All evidence we have now points to the idea that even the first cell is already too complex to have evolved by mere chemical interactions without intervention, given the time-frame of a habitable universe and, narrower yet, a habitable planet
It absolutely does not.
@@LordMathiousI love your intellectual argument. Keep up the great work.
@@burgcarli929 What about evolution don't you understand?
@@LordMathious Please, Lord, enlighten me...
@@burgcarli929 Do you know how questions work?
What about evolution don't you understand?
That is a fantastic overview packed into a 3 minute video, those hungry for deeper explanations and supporting evidence may deep dive into those references made.
Yep, Dr. James Tour, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. John Lennox are scientists from different fields, that are also Christian apologists !
Notice that the sources referenced (Behe and Meyer) are both from ID proponents and not peer reviewed material. It's not to say you can't read them and learn from them, but given the fact that these sources are quite controversial, I think he should've mentioned others since you won't get the scientific consensus view from them. Fx, irreducible complexity as Behe presents it is not accepted by most scientists in the relevant fields.
Yeah, these ideas are terribly pseudoscientific and illogical.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440they are complete science lol with no religion attached, you people can’t make up your mind huh?
@@ashunboundYh when you're Christian, even when you fight them with science, it's "nonsensical " .😂
Yep, great points! I recommend everyone look into Dr. James Tour, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. John Lennox, they are scientists from different fields, that are also Christian apologists !
Haven't they all been thoroughly debunked as well?
@@kinggenius930 Nope, not at all.
@@bryant475 No, they have....
@@kinggenius930
You say that as if evolution is factually true.
@@kinggenius930 Nope, they haven't.
someone should help me, I sit in a room suffering, God wants to bring in good things but cannot as no one will help
I think that God has used guided evolutionary processes to bring us to the place we are today. There are quite a few Christian apologists today who are not young earth creationists. John Lennox believes in an old earth and so does Stephen Meyer, although they do not hold to evolution as the mechanism that God used in that timescale. I think they believe that God performed a series of creative acts, perhaps equivalent to the 6 "days" of creation, interspersed with long periods of micro changes leading up to the next creative burst. This is possibly how God did it but I think it is also possible that He used fairly standard evolutionary processes driven by the genetic information codes built into living cells by God's foresight (Perry Marshalls perspective in his helpful book "Evolution 2.0").
The problem I have with the God-directed evolution hypothesis is that it still requires long periods of dying cycles. It is therefore based on the idea that death is part of God's creation and not a consequence of sin.
@@chrisaltar A couple of thoughts on that - bear with me! First, that the point at which Lucifer became the "god of this world" was when he was thrown down out of heaven (Isaiah 14:12). This was when death first entered the equation on earth. Second, when God created Adam, He put him in what seemed to be a protected garden. God told Adam prior to his sinning to fill the earth and "subdue it" in Gen 1:28. The Hebrew word used here (kabash = assault, bring into subjection, force, trample, tread under foot) is a warfare term suggesting at that point something was already out of order and needed to be put right. This was Adams mission but he sinned and in fact instead became part of the problem.
@@richardredmond1463 Interesting thought. However, in your second example, death would be a consequence of Lucifer's fall, not part of creation as in your first example of God-directed evolution. Second, man (Adam) would not be part of evolution, but would be created separately in a protected garden.
It's a strange mix of creation and evolution. How should I understand it?
First, God created the world (in what form, actually?). Was it the fall of Lucifer that brought death to the world and started evolution? Then God created a protected garden and Adam in it? This does not fit the biblical view very well.
@@chrisaltar Good points. Yes, it's possible in this scenario that being the god of this world meant that he was able to bring a level of death into this world. He could not create anything because he was not in fact God but he could inject a level of his own fallen nature into God's creation, as Jesus said, Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy.
So in this scenario, there would have been pre-adamic races, what scientists call Neanderthals, homo erectus etc. But these did not bear the image of God. At a certain point, God imprinted Himself on two of them, Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden etc. This is all just conjecture of course! A plus out of this model is that it provides the wives for Adam and Eves later fallen sons and maybe gives some kind of context for the Nephilim of Gen 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." In any event, I'm looking forward to watching the full video in heaven!
so tell me was there death before sin , did mankind evolve, ? Exodus 20 v11 says creation was 6 days part of the 4th commandment that the Lord God wrote on to stone and handed to Moses Exodus 31 v18, No where in the account of Genesis does it allude to an evolutionary process but to the spoken word of God , Let there be and in Genesis on the 6th day God formed man and breathed into the breathe of life , every miracle we see in the NT is of Jesus as Creator and as Colossians points out in Him through Him and for Him .
Amen!!!
I'd also like to see a random explosion code, design and create DNA and the human brain. Still waiting.
How is your Merry Christmas brother Festus..? God bless my friend.
@@gi169 Great. A day off work and home with my family. Can't ask for more than that. Hope you're having a wonderful time..
Why would you want to see that?
@@kinggenius930
Why not?
@@TomMichael5678 Why not indeed? Just curious as to Festus' motivation for wanting to see it
Why do these people ask Turek questions about science, then accept his answers. He knows nothing about science.
A lot of Americans do not care about their education
Does he not have a right to have an opinion about science? What makes it ok for you to claim he knows nothing about science which is a way of saying you do know something about science? Are you a scientist?
@@blusheep2 science isn't an opinion, like evolution..
Denying it is irrelevant, evolution still happens
@@blusheep2 I don't need to be a scientists to understand science. I need to adhere to the scientific method.
@@blusheep2 because he ALWAYS gets it wrong.
For those who don’t believe in a creator…
I agree that believing in a creator does take faith but not blind faith. We have creation itself to support a creator. Things don’t appear from nothing.
It takes much greater faith to believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind. In the end it is either matter before mind or mind before matter, and all scientific, philosophical, and reasonable evidence points to the latter.
The earth is also running down so we cannot come to the conclusion that the universe always existed.
We all have free will and can believe what we want. Just don’t understand how and why people are mocked for believing in a creator when the evidence we do have requires much less faith to believe in anything other cause then a creator
Could it be that perhaps that the evidence has nothing to do with it and maybe you don’t like the idea of God so you deny Him? For some it is easier to suppress the truth to do the things you want with no accountability to a Holy God. Perhaps If we pretend He doesn’t exist, we don’t have to change our ways and can continue do what we want.
You need to show that it is a creation, not just assert that it is creation. That is a major flaw in logic right there.
In quantum physics, virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time.
Why does it have to be accidentally, there is no shown intent to be accident. It's more likely to be naturally.
Matter before mind, the mind is made up of matter, so the answer is obvious.
Earth is running down. So earth, not universe, did not always exist.
Here I have shown problems in your way of thinking, it requires less faith to not believe in God.
Could it be that you don't like the idea of God not existing, your eternal happiness in heaven to be false, can't assert a moral authority to things you don't like.
Yes, amen! You've identified the real problem.
I think there could well be a creator God of some kind. But without proof I find it hard to go much further than that.
@@Sundayschoolnetworkyes amen! Let’s just ignore everything people say in response because it doesn’t conform to what you already believe!
@@mattr.1887
From your perspective I am interested in how you believe everything in the world came in to existence.
If a person denies God as the creator, then they must be putting their faith in something.
If we truly look at the options available, we can logically come to the conclusion that less faith is required to believe in a creator.
Thank you Frank. Try as he might Satan can’t get rid of God. Men and women influenced by Satan can’t get rid of God.
You haven't shown a god is real.
You have never been able in over 6000years to prove yours or any others gods exist, never mind prove that it created any Satan's.
Real Christians know God is real... I can prove his existence. He communicates in MANY different ways.... But atheist don't get proof... THATS THE WHOLE POINT.
Hahaha... But hey , you do you Playboy...id like to obtain my eternal life. Believe what you want. I suggest surrendering to God and accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Youll see your proof then. Non believers will never.
@@chrisbailey9377 your imagination isn't reality
God bless frank turek!!
Frank, you're a mighty man.
I wish Frank would do a debate about the topic "Evolution Vs Creationism"
Using what epistemologi?
If objective reality, Evolution wins.
If Bible, Creationism wins.
@@friisteching3433 Useless argument , what about the best evidence wins based on the knowledge we have today, it`s not about evolution is right or wrong , but is there evidence for macro-evolution ( no ) is there evidence that life arose by itself ( no ), so let us start from these questions. ❤
@@runelund5600 looking at objective reality, is there evidence of macro evolution. Yes.
Looking in the Bible, is there evidence of macro evolution.
You will get 2 different answers if you aren't using the same epistemologi.
@@friisteching3433 so what is the evidence of macro-evolution ? , just one, and remember we are not talking about micro-evolution, which no one questions, it happens all the time.
@@friisteching3433 Actually there isn't. The arguments used for cell to incel Evolution are at critical points logical fallacies. That also indicates that this isn't exactly complying with rationality, which is a requirement for science.
Love this truth .
I prefer the truth. But if you are happy with this, then live your truth I guess.
Hahaha 🤡@@somerandom3247
Forget about irreducible complexities in cells,forget about micro or macro evolution,just the complexity of RNA which they state as the building blocks of information is vast in the coding of genes, it is in billions of codes.
All of that is still explained by evolution...
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 it is not or sufficiently explained, I have followed atheistic scientists from Richard Dawkins, Creg Ventor,Stanely Miller and main others but they all have shortcomings were the information comes from.
@@martinchitembo1883 I assure you that these scientists would have given you a much clearer explanation if they were asked this question directly. Perhaps I can elucidate the matter to you: RNA and DNA are nucleic acids that are capable of self-replication, which relies on autocatalysis and the regulation of proteins and either biomolecules. There is no abstract information present in them; rather, this is complex chemistry that has been refined over billions of years due to natural selection.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 DNA and RNA can only self-replicate in the sense that they are components of a larger self-replicating system.
To say that they contain no abstract information is pointless; they contain the necessary information required to replicate and maintain the larger chemical mechanism that they help comprise. This information had to come from a source other than the nucleic acids themselves.
True, it is complex chemistry. To attribute the complexity of our genetic code to a process that is ultimately reductive in nature is an unsatisfying explanation.
Yer, weird how the shape and composition of chemicals make them more likely to stick together.
Got em!
Hallelujah
It's so strange when people claim to accept "micro" evolution, but not "macro" evolution. "Marco" evolution is just "micro" evolution over a long time. How is "micro" evolution not just evolution? The objection seems to be that they don't think enough time has passed. OK, then why aren't they just arguing that? Why are they arguing against evolution if they already accept evolution with "mirco" evolution? What would happen if you took "mirco" evolution, which the accept, and waited a billion years? Would you not end up with "macro" evolution?
You're asking for the logic behind rejecting one of the most widely supported scientific theories of all time. You're asking why flat earthers think their back yard explains the flat earth.
The sorts of people who consume fundamentalist apologetics are not the sort of people who have a working knowledge of how prefixes work.
The difference between the two is one is observable & one is not.
What is the phrase that I am looking for?
I think it is "Climbing Mount Improbable".
Flip your coins & find out if it works out for you.
Nope. Adaptation has limits, that's the first point in the video. It results in reduction of information, complexity and further adaptability, precisely the opposite of what you need for Neo-Darwinian speciation. Adding time doesn't remove the limits. So "micro" and "macro" are not the same. One occurs and we can observe it, the other is hypothesised based on a false notion. It's like saying that because we observe a puppy grow into a dog over the space of 6 months, in 20 years it'll be the size of a bus.
Merry Christmas. ❤ And to the atheists scrooges too.
Merry Christmas.
A belated Happy Christmas from this atheist scrooge.
Some great points
No, they are all terrible points.
@@Bomtombadi1Nah, their great points bud, keep coping
@@isaiah55989 cooing with?
@@Bomtombadi1 Just saying they’re terrible doesn’t do anything for your camp. If you can’t refute his arguments, just calling them terrible isn’t going to cut it.
Great video. Too bad the audio isn't synced...
Love how he changes (macro) definition to suit his argument , he should stick to magic not Science
There’s nothing scientific about macro evolution. 😂
It’s a religion with zero evidence using the scientific method.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Here’s the issue, there is no scientific evidence to macro-evolution. It’s faith based.
The sad part is it’s being taught to kids and people defend it without evidence. What side are you on?
@@Pedro2NRYa'll love to throw around the word religion in a derogatory term while being in a religion to things that don't even approximate the definition of, or remotely fit any criteria of a religion. Same goes with faith as well 😅
@@katamas832 I never said it was derogatory but faith based. 🥱
@@Pedro2NR
Yeah no you are wrong.
Evolution is a fact, stop whining and get over it, science isn't an opinion
I understand that the theory of evolution is widely accepted, but as a Creationist, I believe in a different interpretation of the evidence, one that aligns with my understanding of the Bible and the origins of life as described in Genesis.
@@FaithfulJohn2031 as a creationist nothing, creationism isn't a fact
@@FaithfulJohn2031 creationists don't understand science at all, otherwise they wouldn't be a creationist
@@logicalatheist1065
I understand the perception, but I believe my faith and understanding of science are not mutually exclusive.
@@FaithfulJohn2031 faith is absolutely useless to science
Can any creationist please explain what these limits are to genetic change?
You see it all the time , dogs produce dogs cats produce cats e t c it never goes outside of that apart from in the imagination .
@@patrickparker8417
But what are these limits to genetic change Frank mentioned?
The geneticists aren’t aware of these limits so they’d love to know.
@@Moist._Robot I told you you see it all the time things produce after their own kind type that's the principle .
@@patrickparker8417
It’s irrelevant.
Thanks for trying but Frank said there are limits to genetic change.
Just because you only see the local bus in your local area doesn’t mean it can’t be driven to another area.
@@patrickparker8417
"Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats etc, it never goes outside of that apart from the imagination"
That begs the question, where did the first pair of cats come to be in fully formed, fully grown and fully matured from? Out of thin air? From out of nowhere? Is what what you're saying?
Alpha:
The universe cannot have an infinite past as there couldn't have been not enough time for the present to happen yet before it did with an infinite past.
>The paradoxical impossibility still applies to God, special pleading.
To say it's special pleading presupposes time before the existence of the universe which is nonsensical as time is a feature of the universe.
>God couldn't have created the universe along with time as that would take time.
That's just another way of saying that time cannot begin to exist as that would take time which is just nonsensical.
>What if the universe began to exist from quantum mechanics?
The fact remains that it has to be from something timeless otherwise it's just begging the question.
Without God, all that exists is the universe in different forms which cannot be timeless as space-time-mater is a continuum. One can't exist without the other.
So by the law of excluded middle, the universe either has a finite or infinite past.
With the latter being impossible, the only possibility left is the finite past of the universe, that it began to exist.
Which without God, if it isn't from God is the universe from nothing which is impossible as nothing comes from nothing.
So the non-existence of God is impossible.
TLDR: A timeless something is necessary which cannot be the universe.
>Why does the timeless something has to be a conscious, sentient being?
Those aren't things which can only exist within the space-time-matter continuum so it makes no sense for it to lack it when it came from it. Mind over matter.
>So is God sinful/evil?
No, sin/evil is precisely a deviation from his nature.
Progress without a beginning is totally possible. I can add one to any integer, and there's no first or last integer. I can move through space and nobody thinks space is finite.
A beginning is impossible with an infinite past, but nobody except apologists think the universe does not have an infinite past. Seriously: name any scientist that tells you what came before the big bang. Because I can name a half dozen theories of what happened.
Also, the universe has always been here, even if it had a beginning. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist. Nothing can cause time, because causes come before events, and there's no "before time started". If causes can come after events, then there's no need for something before the universe to have caused it.
And even if all you said is true, it's not the god of the bible you're talking about, because the god of the bible didn't create the big bang and wait 13 billion years to get where we are.
@@darrennew8211 Integers, numbers aren't in some kind of a progression.
And saying the universe has always been there is just another way of saying that the universe has an infinite past which I already explained is impossible.
Also where did the argument ever mention causality? You're arguing against an irrelevant argument.
@@junbiok7188 Integers are absolutely a progression. One. Two. Three. It's like the basic and most fundamental feature of the integers.
And no, the universe always having been here is *not* the same as the universe having an infinite past. Do you agree or disagree with the statement "there was never a time when the universe didn't exist"?
How about the statement "there was never a time when time didn't exist"?
And there's no reason that the universe always having existed is impossible. Please explain why you think that's so. Don't just handwave something you heard someone else explain. Tell me what part of "the universe has always existed" is impossible.
And the causality is a fundamental part of claiming that god caused the universe, isn't it? What did you think I'm talking about?
@@darrennew8211Yes, there was never a time where the universe didn't exist.
>Please explain why you think that's so.
I already did so are you handwaving away the explanation by rejecting the fact that progress without a beginning is impossible?
@@junbiok7188 "Progress without a beginning is impossible." Please explain further what that means. Why is progress without a beginning impossible? You can't just say "that's impossible" and pretend like that's an argument. (I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong.)
If there was never a time when the universe didn't exist, that means the universe has always existed, right?
If you accept both "microevolution" and that time passes, then you accept "macroevolution". Claiming otherwise means you don't actually understand how evolution works
Frank and his followers don't even understand basic entry level science, baking soda and vinegar would be the Devil's work to them
Hi, I am very interested to learn how you came to this conclusion because I struggle to find people willing to have this conversation! We can observe variations within a species (e.g. length or shape of an existing feature) but I need help seeing what evidence we have that a new organ could develop over time. I think I understand the theory but not the evidence. Can you help?
@@papadom9153 You are asking for evidence of an organ evolving?
@@kinggenius930 Yes please
@@papadom9153 Why would you be asking here, of all places?
💯 Amen ✝️🕊️
🙏
We must go and preach [repentance] And [remission of sins] Among All nations
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luke 24:47 KJV
- Believe [for your faith will save you]
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for [if ye believe not] that I am he, ye shall [die in your sins.]
John 8:24 KJV
- To give knowledge of salvation [by the remission of "our" sins]
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the [remission of their sins,]
Luke 1:77 KJV
- Receive [remission of sins] when we are converted
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name [whosoever believeth] [in him] shall [receive] [remission of sins.]
Acts 10:43 KJV
- Confession of sin [confess your sins, everyday]
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to [forgive us our sins,] and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9 KJV
- [Remission of sins] from water baptism
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be [baptized] every one of you in the [name of Jesus Christ] for the [remission of sins,] and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 KJV
- Have charity [to have compassion]
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall [cover the multitude of sins.]
1 Peter 4:8 KJV
- Love [to love thy neighbor as thyself]
Hatred stirreth up strifes: but [love covereth all sins.]
Proverbs 10:12 KJV
- Convert sinner from his error of sin [convince someone of their error, like we were convinced]
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall [hide a multitude of sins.]
James 5:20 KJV
- Endure [predestined are those that endure until the end and do not die in sin]
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall [endure unto the end,] the same [shall be saved.]
Mark 13:13 KJV
- Sincere turn from practice of sin [or All will likewise perish]
I tell you, Nay: but, [except ye repent,] ye shall [all likewise perish.]
Luke 13:3 KJV
1. Misunderstanding genetics, you are your ancestor.
2. Inreducible complexity, demonstrated false in the dover trial.
3. Cambrian explosion. A few hundred million years of a sudden increase of creatures in a resource rich environment. Million of transitional fossils, over ten thousand for ancestor apes to man evolution alone.
4. Related to the 1st point.
😂😂😂
Dover trial didnt prove anything. Judges decisions are not scientific facts!
1. Illogical fallacy.
2. No, they didn't. Playing word games isn't proving something false.
3. There is no prove of this being an age of 'a few hundred million years'. He used it tot demonstrate that even if you accept it as specific age-era, Evolution still won't work.
3.2 There is no 'transitional fossils'. All are fully developed species, showing perhaps some degenerative features.
@@metapolitikgedanken612um,
1) there's no such thing as an "illogical fallacy".
2) they didn't play word games, they demonstrated how the flagella was reducible which disproved Behe's argument.
3) They proved the length of the Cambrian using independent dating methods like stratigraphy and radiometric dating.
3.2) A transitional fossil is any fossil organism with traits found in both ancestral and derived populations. Any competent adult knows thete are hundreds of examples.
@@Gek1177 1.) actually there is. If it wouldn't be illogical, it wouldn't be a fallacy.
2.) No, they didn't prove their point. Just because similar components are used somewhere else, doesn't disprove irreducible complexity. Evolutionists frequently demonstrate that they don't understand what he argument there actually is.
3. There is no 'independent dating' method. In fact any dating method must make assumptions it can not prove to be true. If they'd be honest they'd look for the youngest coin in the pot. But what is actually done in the dating game is looking for techniques that are likely to yield result supporting the paradigm.
3.2. Well you are assuming what you'd have to proof. You'd have to demonstrate that those are ancestor/descendent species. Now it isn't implausible that some species had some ancestors that were different then them in some way. But it would still be the same time. For example: A donkey and a horse did possibly have some equine Ancestor different from them. But that doesn't mean they got a common ancestor with a fish. So spare us the thoroughly debunked canard of the 'transitional fossils'. They simply are not what Evolutionists claim they are. They part of story telling, posing as 'the science' of course. But one shouldn't confuse science fiction with science.
If evolution is true or not it does no address how life came from non life. It cannot be deomstrated that life began by random events
Actually, basically every single one of the prebiotic compounds has been demonstrated to occur naturally and autocatalytic molecules also occur naturally so it seems that the first living cells absolutely can form naturally just based on those facts.
@@Gek1177 how was is demonstrated
@@Gek1177
Mr. Speculation strikes again.
How have you come to the conclusion that "it seems" the first living cells can absolutely form naturally?
Have you witnessed the formation of information occur naturally within "anything"?
@@jeffphelps1355 in lab experiments.
Amino acids, peptides, lipids. You name a prebiotic compound and it's been determined to form naturally.
@@Gek1177
How's it "formed naturally" in an induced lab experiment?
This makes no sense.
Francis Collins, a strong Christian, who was head of the genome project disagrees with this, in his book the 'Language of God' he argues against the 'intelligent design' movement and shows how the genetic evidence for macrevolution is extremely compelling. As a Christian who has studied genetics, I too am highly skeptical of the whole 'intelligent design' movement, particularly since it doesn't really provide any alternative scientific theories of its own. And its arguments against macroevolution are not convincing - e.g. Irreducible complexity idea has been proven false, it sounds correct, but the science says otherwise - we have examples of the 'parts' having previous different functions and then can come together as more complex (e.g. the eye). I certainly believe God could have supernaturally intervened and de novo created all species, but it seems he chose instead to create the world with specific natural laws that carry out his 'design,' all while upholding the very 'life of the universe.'
Anyway, as a Christian involved in genetics I would plead for Christians not to be taken in by the claims of atheists that macroevolution disproves God. Macroevolution is perfectly possible if a mind like God exists - in fact as Frank even said at the end, macroevolution would REQUIRE a mind to drive it. So it actually already points to agency of a mind (because the odds of macroevolution producing us without agency are virtually impossible)! We as Christians should embrace macroevolution* because it points to God. Evolution is a scientist mechanism of creation, God is the agent, the two do not compete and are not mutually exclusive.
*Though I do think macroevolution will 'update' more as we get more data, the core concept appears conclusive, it will simply be adjusting some more 'periphery' parts.
C.S. Lewis appears to have believed macroevolution was real and there are many other serious Christians who do, for example the youtuber 'InspiringPhilosophy.' Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and if you read this, God bless, I mean no quarrel and send my message with a cheerful heart. I know many will disagree with that I said but that's ok! 🙏🙏🙏
Why does macroevolution require a mind to drive it?
@@kinggenius930 Well many would disagree it requires a mind (particularly if you don't believe in God), but the odds of macroevolution producing Homo Sapiens - i.e. the required steps it took - appear to be crazily slim (E.g. a book called Anthropic Cosmological Principle explains it). Some say it's purely chance and that's the explanation, but I would argue that macroevolution required an input of information that could only come from a agency/a mind. Even if you take the genetic code for example, that is arguably a language with genes as long strings of information. This level of information I find more plausible to be produced (or at least 'guided') by intelligence than purely random chance alone (it would take too long to produce us even over millions and millions of years of chance). Some give the analogy of imagining a gorilla typing on a keyboard and waiting to see how long until it could type even a full sentence of Shakespeare - seems highly unlikely it ever would. Of course this is debated hotly and many would strongly refute what I say :), in any case a very interesting area!
@@kinggenius930mAcRoEvOlUtIoN is a creationist term because they can't understand science to save their lives.
@@kinggenius930 Macroevolution requires a mind? Are you acknowledging macroevolution?
@@vladtheemailer3223 Acknowledging it? What do you mean?
Amazing, one of the be st videos from this channel. Thanks everyone
I thought frank was OEC after that video with lane Craig. YEC is the better model and I would say the Biblical uncompromising worldview
YEC is a belief less than 200 years old.
OEC doesn't compromise the Bible, it recognizes that the Bible only says what it says and not more.
(I'm not saying YEC is wrong, BTW.)
@@acem82 why do you say that when the whole theory of evolution was popularized by darwin 200 years ago? Everyone before that didn’t believe in ape theory
@@hozn One may note from the video that Frank also refuted Darwinian evolution, aka undirected gradualism, aka ape theory.
Even ice cores mess with YEC, the six days of Genesis may represent a re-start from an earlier apocalyptic episode on an old earth. Either way Jesus is still the Son of God.
@@hozn I didn't say that at all. I said YEC is a belief less than 200 years old.
Look it up.
I have been saved and I know God is real so evolution for me falls flat on its face even Darwin knew he lied there's never been in our history a change of kinds
For GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life 🙌
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.
Merry Christmas brother
@@gi169 you too brother , hope you have a blessed day in CHRIST JESUS 🙌
@@larzman651
I'm curious, what makes you think a god can't exist and evolution be true?
What is a kind?
Actually wasn't Jesus god in the flesh so not actually it's son?
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD That is because The LORD is a Triune God, one God in three person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all three exist as one, and God the Son is the Word of God, and the Word of God became flesh, through a human body of a virgin became human, so Jesus remains the Son of God the Father.
@@binhanh296
Yes that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, so one person is three?
So then if one part dies does the rest?
Virgin's can't have children, that is scientifically impossible. You need a sperm to impregnate the egg. Now if Jesus was born to himself you run into a problem, because for Jesus to exist you need the sperm but if Jesus needs to exist for the Three to exist then you are just going around in circles to try and convince yourself any of this is possible with nonsense.
Savage. Truth is savage
Yup, evolution is a fact but only certain religious people deny it... Truth can be hard to accept, especially if it makes your religious beliefs look foolish
Yes indeed the truth is that evolution is real and happens
Solid
_"Do you believe in Time?"_
_"Well that depends on what Time you mean. If you mean Minutes, I believe in Minutes. But if you mean Millennia, I don't think that's true!"_
That's quite literally how it sounds. Because macro- and micro-evolution are nothing more than two *conceptual* perspectives *on the exact same thing.* Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other, because they're both the same thing.
So right off the bat he's just showing his complete ignorance on the subject, which is the exact reason why he doesn't "believe" in evolution. But more to his ignorance, it's not even a matter of belief, because evolution is a fact. Denying Evolution is quite literally like denying Gravity, or that water is wet.
He only sounds smart to people who know even less about evolution than he does and who also won't double check his claims. If you know even the basics of evolution, then he'll sound to you as ridiculous as a flat-earth buffoon or a braindead Breatharian.
*Biology is not selectively wrong it that one specific field where being right is inconvenient specifically for creationism.*
The people who study Evolution don't have any axes to grind for or against any religious or political beliefs. They're just scientists doing their job trying to really understand how reality works. And science is grassroots, bottom-up, and guided by a very strict methodology that was evolved over centuries to weed out lies and frauds as much as possible. There are no conspiracies in science. Science isn't anti-creationism. It's creationism that is selectively anti-inconvenient-science.
Ok, I know about evolution. It is not "the exact same thing".
Micro-evolution is variation within species of the 'already existing' genome/information. The programming allows for limited adaptation.
Macro-evolution is a massive infusion of new information that brings in novel body plans and parts and regulatory networks. The new information must supply the new parts in a way that they will be properly matched to their adjacent systems.
"Time" doesn't change anything like the supposed evolution like you say. Only the description of its' length is different.
You made an interesting claim, "evolution is a fact". I've heard this repeated a gazillion times. Can you demonstrate any molecular level explanation of evolution without any maybe, possibly, perhaps, just-so stories? Or are you just repeating what you've been told to believe? I ask this because I ask this over and over without any reasonable response.
@@TheGuy..
The new information are mutations to the genome.
Simply read a book on genetics from a real scientist NOT a creationist if you want to understand evolution at the molecular level.
None that f the clowns Turek refers to are geneticists or biologists.
what is “molecular level evolution”.
What you describe as “macro-evolution,” is not correct. You’re describing it as though it were akin to Pokémon.
Time does play a factor in evolution. Why would you think it doesn’t?
Why do words such as “possibly, maybe and just so,” negate evolution being a fact?
@@Moist._Robot To save you time the channels are Andry K, BF Tiny Lectures, Khan Academy, MIT OpenCourseWare, Physics Explained
@@TheGuy..
Well then they’re wrong because everything you said is wrong.
The reason we havent seen dogs evolve into different species is that it takes time and we would want to do it. With planets, we get create new species and have done so in the pass.
Complixety is just a bunch of simple things combined. We just lack the means of putting everything together to create a cell.
According to evolution, we would not expect to have every fossil. The fossils are form is difficult and they are rare tk get.
You think the other reason we haven't seen dogs evolve is because the genetic code of canines won't allow it to transition into anything other than a canine?
Still doesn't explain away the total lack of transitional fossils which were prior to the Cambrian explosion. There are fossils which existed prior to the Cambrian period. They all died out. None of the fossils from the pre-Cambrian have been linked to the subsequent fossils which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian.
I came across an article which advertised itself as explaining the mystery of the Cambrian explosion. Read it thinking they had discovered some new info. What a disappointment! All it did was try to explain that the "explosion" took place over a long period of time. Nothing new had been found. Really nothing! Still a mystery for evolutionists to explain.
Then there are serious lacks of transitional fossils much later on too. To say that the serious lack of transitional fossils is just a result of the rarity of fossils is just an excuse. There are too many cases of that problem to just use that excuse. That is the reason Gould and Eldridge proposed punctuated equilibrium. Under p.e., there is a long period of stasis followed by rapid evolution which would explain how transitional fossils are so hard to find. Under traditional Darwinian evolution, there should be an uncountable series of transitional fossils. But they are lacking. Eldridge even wrote a book on fossils and was criticized for not including transitional fossils in the book. His response was that there were no fossils which were airtight examples of transition.
And new species do not prove evolution. The differences between species is small enough that many times slight variation in color or size denotes different species. For evolution to be true, there would need to be proof of morphological transition from one body plan to another. This is where a lack of transitional forms really is a problem.
Watched a video by Dr. Dawkins on the best evidence for evolution. He showed the different fossil whales. Seems the traditional horse fossils have been dropped as the best example of evolution. And well it should be. There were major problems with the presentation of horse fossils. But getting back to whales. Yes there are various fossil forms of whales, but where are all the transitions between them? Dawkins showed none at all and even laughed about how creationists would be asking for them. But it is not a laughing matter. His theory says they existed. But he has none, zero. If he thinks it is funny, the joke's on him. Puts a big hole in his theory.
More I could say, but need to go.
Have a good Christmas day.
My question is, if evolution is a thing macro evolution that is, shouldn't a great many living things be in the process of changing? And dont forget what he said about irreducible complexity. Everything has to change at once because if you change one thing at a time, everything else shuts down, doesnt work. And where does the information come from in the DNA to tell things to change? Ive been "studying" evolution and creation for the last 6 and a half years, and i have to say that i can not see evolution working.
Do you think an Iphone 16 will just create itself overtime?
@@joeking9061 hahaha tha was good one. Pin paaam puuum atheist!
Limits, irreducible, fossil, epigenetic
I really enjoy discussions of scientific topics by Christians and atheists and I don't think it's faith in God OR science.
Science is an exploration of God's toolbox in my opinion. That view has allowed me to enjoy scientific topics like evolution, cosmology and astrophysics without weakening my faith in my savior, Jesus Christ. I don't claim to understand everything in the Christian bible anymore than I claim to understand everything about specific scientific topics. There are theories in science that turn out wrong and get overturned and there are things in the bible that people interpret wrongly. Organized religion and faith are very different things. Organized religion requires faith in mankind and there I have many doubts. I don't have such doubts with my faith in Jesus.
If it turns out I am wrong then I have lost nothing. I will have lived a moral life to the best of my abilities, treated people with kindness, compassion and honesty. At times I have fallen short of those goals and asked forgiveness. If it turns out I am right in my Christian beliefs I have gained God's gift of life eternal through the sacrifice of Jesus. It doesn't seem to be a bad way to live when you look at the big picture. I am sure many will disagree and all are able to choose their own path in life. Free will is a gift to us all. God Bless!
Incredulity isn't an argument.
So why are you incredulous about God?
@@pigzcanfly444 so why are you incredulous about unicorns?
@@raintalon6138 Unicorns is a strawman logical fallacy atheists like to hide behind in absence of an intelligent conversation.
@@CiscoWes you don't know what a strawmen is do ya? Lol
@@raintalon6138 Dealing with evolutionists/atheists online for the past 25 years, I’ve unfortunately learned more than I want to know about strawman arguments and how they always tie-in with atheism/evolutionism.
Evolution is the grandiose of delusions.
Just like the round earth, right?
@@skaruts
ADHD???????
But the original authors of Christianity COULDN'T possibly have been delusional or mistaken or deceitful?
Hey Tom, I got IllogicalAgnostic, and Lawrence to say Merry Christmas... MERRY CHRISTMAS brother...
Darwinism truly is a fairy tale for adults
Frank's video of fruit flies contains no actual fruit flies. (1:05)
Genetics proves common ancestry among all living things. This isn't up for debate anymore. Its an observable fact.
No, it doesn't. It shows common creator for all types of organisms. It also shows limits of variations from organism types.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 Of course any actual evidence for anything can be "explained" by saying "all-powerful magic did it." The real question is, (1) why do you believe that and (2) why do you think that's in any way useful?
@@metapolitikgedanken612 thats an assertion on your part. Care to demonstrate that is the case?
@@darrennew8211 Well, isn't that what Evolutionists assert. Making 'mutation and selection' the explanation for anything. They don't call it magic of course, but apparently it can work magic as well.
As far as 'supreme creator' invoke. It is a necessity for getting what you can't get via natural. physical processes. E.g. having reverse entropy or energy at at all. As well as well ordered systems like life forms. If you want to have that without a supreme creator, you'd have to dismiss anything from physics, logic or both.
@jacquelineharris6124 It follows logically as best explanation, if you consider all valid evidences.
genetics is indirect evidence. science requires direct observable evidence. there is none for evolution
Evolution is a fact
The term "evolution" can encompass various meanings, from small-scale adaptation to the larger, more contentious ideas of common descent. As a creationist, I see the undeniable presence of change and adaptation within species as part of a designed system that allows life to thrive in a post-Fall world. My perspective on these changes is rooted in a narrative that not only explains the diversity and complexity of life but also offers a profound understanding of our origins and purpose.
@@FaithfulJohn2031
Evolution, is descent with modification
So you accept evolution and use the term species, that’s a step forward from “kind”
Have you ever seen any evidence of fully formed plants or animals particularly mammals popping into existence out of thin air ?
If you have I’d like to know what it is
And
No harm to you John
But not only had it already been proven that Adam and Eve did not exist,
The story of the fall makes absolutely no sense.
@@FaithfulJohn2031
Hi John
Couple of things
First … the story of the fall makes no sense at all.
I’m glad that you accept evolution, if only partially.
What process leads to those small scale changes?
What was suggested by taxonomy has been confirmed by genetics according to leading Christian scientists…
There can be no doubt about common ancestry
@@mickqQ
The confirmation of common ancestry through genetics, as you mentioned, is a significant point of discussion. While this conclusion is drawn from the evidence, as a Creationist, I approach the same data with a different historical framework. I see the genetic record as also supportive of a model that includes a recent, literal Adam and Eve and a global flood, providing explanations for the observed genetic diversity and relatedness within kinds while upholding the authority of Scripture in its historical narrative.
@@FaithfulJohn2031
When I say common ancestry
Our genetics prove that we have a common ancestor to the other apes, just as sure as your genes can prove that you are your fathers son.
So what was suggested by taxonomy , is confined by genetics
We are an evolved species of ape,
There was no first man and woman, just as there is no first of any species.
The flood definitely didn’t happen
And
The story of the fall makes no sense.
Oh
I should add the definition of your God is also incoherent
When you have to lie about the facts, you know you actually have nothing.
Yeah lying about facts is intellectually dishonest. Did Frank lie about any in his argument?
@@matthewscott3727
I would strongly suggest you fact check his opinion on his Life acronym.
So many lies based on personal opinion. But the end of what he states is the best lie, even if macro evolution is true then you still need god. Yeah no you don't and just to clarify micro evolution and macro evolution are exactly the same thing. Evolution is evolution.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD _"even if macro evolution is true then you still need god. Yeah no you don't"_
Actually, you do. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of the first living thing capable of adaptation. So even given macro-evolution, you still have big pieces of the puzzle missing (arguably the most important ones). And research in abiogenesis is in crisis, with the rate of discovered complexity overtaking the rate of explanatory progress massively.
So... where did he lie again?
@@stephenkeen6044
And yet that claim you made still does not require a god, you place god as an answer because you want to, not because you have evidence of such.
Science not having answer does not make your answer correct.
@@stephenkeen6044
Sorry I also forgot to mention, OOLR is not in crisis, it only shows what it discovers. So no crisis there.
Also complexity isn't a Hallmark if design.
Where should one get more information on biology from?
Is it the 3 minute explanation of Evolution from Frank Turek who has a PhD from Southern Evangelical Seminary on his monetized UA-cam channel.
Or you can read and view what a world renowned evolutionary biologist from Oxford has to say.
Professor Richard Dawkins would fit the bill.
Don't just trust them blindly of course. Do read their work and their peer reviewed papers on biology.
Frank's sheep will eat up anything he pukes out
I would say that is a false dichotomy. How about we listen to both and more? Dawkins is hardly an unbiased source. He is the one that said something along the lines of, "Life might have been designed. It may have been designed by advanced alien life, but its certainly not God." He is the one that said something along the lines, "There is nothing really that could convince me God is real. Even if God showed up on the scene, I'd still assume there is another explanation."
Listen to everyone and do the best you can to get it right.
@@logicalatheist1065 Oh, I know, and you atheists are so intellectually robust.
@@blusheep2 Atheism has nothing to do with this...
@@blusheep2 it doesn't matter what other Atheists say, there's no dogma to Atheism, it's not a religion, just a POSITION of disbelief
Excellent information!
I guess with your moniker, you would find this misleading “information” excellent …
@@Bomtombadi1 so you don't agree with his teaching. What did he say that isn't true?
@@Sundayschoolnetwork “good to you,” “molecules to man.” Both are straw man arguments.
@@Bomtombadi1 saying "straw man" isn't an argument in defense of a position. What did you find untrue about his teaching of LIFE?
@@Sundayschoolnetwork I am afraid that a lot of what Frank has to say on this topic is incorrect and has been frequently debunked. I would encourage looking into it more before simply taking Frank at his word
Not understanding evolution is not evidence against evolution.
the last thing evolutionists understand is evolution
It will always be the theory of evolution. Just that that…a theory.
What amazes me about a lot of athiest is the ability to ignore well structured arguments for the sake of not believing. It doesn't make any sense for you to say that not understanding evolution is not evidence against evolution because that was not the point of the video. He didn't say " evolution is false because the bible sais so" rather brought scientific arguments from people who understand the topic and through logical thinking came to a conclusion that evolution could NOT be possible and if it would, it would still prove the existence of God. It's like if i tell you that a car crushed because it drove a mile per hour and crushed a wall that was 1.60 feet away, you wouldn't have to approach deeply to know that it would be impossible, just by using logic, so understand his arguments and also use logic to debunk them
What was the misunderstanding?
@@HS-zk5nn Define "evolutionist" Please. It seems to be a made up term by creationists with no value.
I have just added another arsenal against my evolutionist friends' worldview.
There are rebuttals in the comments already. Don't make the same mistake as Frank.
Genetics proves common ancestry among all living things. Do you disagree with genetics?
@@friisteching3433 please provide the evidence. Not just saying so.
@@codez6234 provide the evidence of rebuttals in the comments? What should I do, link to comments posted under this video? How lazy can you be?
@jacquelineharris6124 Can you show the step by step process? 0 -> 3,1gigabytes. (Humans)
From all those scientific facts we can deduct that Darwin is, at present, in...
It is actually tough to say. Darwin was catholic. And I have heard some evidence that shows he might have thought evolution was God's method of creating life.
But all the people in the universities who blindly accept it as fact? Those people should be a bit concerned.
@@b_korthuis Darwin was a Catholic? Really?
@@b_korthuis It's not accepted blindly. It's accepted based on huge piles of evidence that you are ignorant of or are ignoring.
@@darrennew8211 thank you for proving my point. Evidence must be observed. Evolution by its very nature cannot be observed due to the span of time it supposedly occurs in. So all the "evidence" you refer to are actually inferences based on the interpretation of results. And those interpretations and inferences ignore all the issues outlined in this video. If we, as intelligent creatures, have been unable to trigger evolution in fruit flies (and we have been trying since the 50s), the likelihood of it being a natural process is not likely. And now that we have a better understanding of DNA and know it is a programming language vary more complex than the most complex human made code, it is odd to think that such a code randomly came to be. And since we now know about species specific proteins that are required for the interpretation of segments of RNA and the construction of other proteins, and these proteins are destroyed by the slightest mutation, it becomes a little silly to continue to insist that the inference and interpretation of evolution is still realistic.
@@b_korthuis Not at all. We've evolved new species of animals in the lab. We totally evolved separate species of fruit flies over the course of just a few months. How different do two animals have to be before they are different kinds?
DNA didn't randomly come to be. They aren't destroyed by the slightest mutations. Had you actually educated yourself, you'd know that.
👂👂👂
It's impressive how he can shamelessly rattle down the same old points that have been thoroughly debunked a long time ago.
Another failure to understand anything from Frank... Seriously, how can someone be so ignorant and have people listen to them with respect and reverance?
I wll never understand how people can listen to these grifters and not notice how litle they know...
Let's not forget the time when evolutionary anthropologists put melanin rich folks on display at the Bronx Zoo in NYC.
True. That was horrific. Not sure what relevance it has to this video though
@@kinggenius930 cause it's the fruit of evolutionary ideology
@@knowone11111 How so? Evolution has no ideology
@@kinggenius930 racism is a natural product of evolution, history proves it.
@@knowone11111Again, how so?
Or you could just say the earth is flat with a firmament overhead & that completely eliminates atheism!
_"I don't believe in chairs because there's no evidence of chairs anywhere, and I have evidence against chairs!"_
That's really how it sounds. He clearly doesn't understand evolution because he doesn't want to. He never looked at the fossil record. Or he ignored what he found because he won't ever admit to being wrong. This is not a matter of belief. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. He might as well believe the earth is flat too.
What "facts" have demonstrated evolution to be "factually" true?
@@TomMichael5678 Why don't you type "evidence for evolution" into google and realize there are like a dozen pages just on wikipedia alone explaining it? You're not asking because you want the answer. You're asking because you want to argue nonsense.
@@darrennew8211
So, as usual you have nothing but claims in hand with no facts to prove evolution.
And who wants to argue nonsense?
At least think about what you're saying before you assert your argumentative nonsense as if it proves evolution.
There's functionally no difference between YEC and flat eaetfers and there is in fact a lot of overlap.
Wikipedia?
LOL = 😂
To any of you reading this: guys like Dr. Frank Turek are counting on you to either already believe that evolution isn't true or not know enough about it to to debunk his points. For example, it's super easy to give examples of animals "breaking their genetic limits". For example, in order to be a cat, you have to have certain characteristics. All species of cats, except for cheetahs, have retractable claws. Looks like cheetahs have broken that genetic limit to me. They are cats but not 100% cat. I could give countless more examples. The guy is a fraud along with the likes of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.
I wouldn’t even go so far as to even refer to Frank as a doctor, given the mail order PhD he received from a unaccredited university.
@MikelRC70
The examples you provide, like the characteristics of cheetahs, point to the incredible variability and specialization that exists within created kinds. From a creationist perspective, this variety is not a result of one kind evolving into another over millions of years, but rather a demonstration of the genetic richness and adaptability built into the original created kinds.
@@FaithfulJohn2031 no. That IS evolution. What is so hard for you to grasp?
@@FaithfulJohn2031 Then what would be an example of a kind turning into another kind? I mean, that is what creationists ask for, that is what I gave you, but you don't accept it. Surely you agree that cats have certain characteristics that distinguish it from other kinds, yes? If a cheetah doesn't have all of those characteristics, then how can it be 100% cat?
@@Bomtombadi1
The distinction lies in the kind of change we're observing.
mic drop moment!
Not at all.
Just a rambling of misunderstanding and hoping gullibility prevailed.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
The egg
@@katamas832 prove it.
@@chloemartel9927 Eggs show up way before chickens or birds in the fossil record
@@katamas832 Pretty sure he means a chicken egg. Well, you need a chicken to lay it.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 You don't need a chicken to lay a chicken egg. That's what evolution is all about. If, at some point, you say "this animal is a chicken, that animal is not" then at some point the thing that hatches from the egg isn't what laid the egg. (Of course, that's not how it works, because there is no bright line like that.)
Is Frank a biologist? No? So maybe he isn’t the best source on how evolution works. The fossil record does reflect evolution. We do find transitional fossils. What happens if you add a bunch of micro evolution (not a thing in biology by the way) changes over millions of years? New species.
Yes there will be more varieties of animals with micro evolution overtime, but it will always be the same kind of animal. It won’t turn into a differing animal. You only believe it will
@@mikeramos91 how do you know that? Kind is also not a biology term.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930like it’s rational to believe in a magic being that created the universe with magic. Besides just because you think it doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.
@@nicholasemond1388 we know because that’s all we’ve only observed. To believe it was a different animal before or will be a different animal later simply is imagination
@@mikeramos91 we have observed small changes in species. It is only logical that added up over millions or years, a species could be very different, we can see the differences and similarities between extant and extinct species. If you call that imagination I can’t imagine what you think of creationism.
How races emerged if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve?
None, as they would die out by genetic entropy.
Genetic loss, remodification, migration into separate territories. Differences between people and population groups aren't really a problem in that model.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 yeah that's what we call evolution
@@phoenixanimations5233 Actually it isn't. Unless you equivocate in-species variety with Evolution. Which is a common trick to deceive the incredulous audience.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 Look up "ring species" and tell me what that means to you.
Micro-Evolution should be called "speciation" or "de-volution" because when you breed for selective traits, you're rearranging already existing genetic information, not adding information that wasn't previously available or possible to the animal or plant. The Bible even describes speciation within the equidae (horse) kind/family a few hundreds of years after Noah's Flood near the end of the book of Genesis during the time of Joseph's reign in Egypt, when it says in Chapter 47 verse 17 "So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys" Horses and Donkeys in that verse belong to the same family and can breed to produce mules.
So Micro-Evolution isn't the same Darwinian Evolution, which is macro-evolution, or a change of kind/family. You can breed Dogs all you want, but they will always remain in the Dog family. You can breed Cats all you want, but they will always remain in the cat family, and so on.
Most historical Christians adhered to the young-earth worldview for most of our history, and Jesus clearly affirmed the literal historicity of Genesis when he said that god made them male and female in the beginning (Matthew 19:4) and just as it was during the days of Noah, so too it will be at the coming of the son of man (Matthew 24:37-39). Evolution and "millions of years" is a new concept that only came about 200-250 years ago when atheistic scientists like Charles Lyell (who heavily influenced Darwin) decided to interpret the fossils and rock layers in a different way, and Christians should not compromise with that sort of thing due to the multiple theological problems associated with it (no death before sin in Romans 5:12, the work week described in the 4th of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20:8-11, and the worldwide scale of Noah's Flood in the aforementioned Matthew 24:37-39, to name just 3 examples).
"and can breed to produce mules" so when a specie split and cannot produce offsprings. Its a new kind. Well macro evolution confirmed by that definition.
millions of years was already a thing before Darwin. It was first discovered by geologists, when attempting to understand the geological coloumn (the small part of it they could see).
@@friisteching3433 That's not a new "kind", it's a new species within the kind. Remember, the Biblical definition of "kind" is "family" in our modern-day classification of kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species. Mules are within the same family as horses, donkeys, zebras, etc, they're not members of a different family, like cows.
Darwinian evolution (or Macro-evolution, whatever you want to call it), is a living organism going from it's current family to another family, such as a single-celled bacteria gradually becoming all forms of life on earth over millions of years, which isn't testable or provable because we can't live for (and thus observe) millions of years. You're right that there were people interpreting the rock layers as being millions of years old before Darwin, but it wasn't that long before him (the late 1700's and early 1800's is when the idea of deep time for the age of the earth took off in the secular community); before that, most scientists took the literal 7 24-hour day interpretation of the book of Genesis as historical fact, which it is.
@@ryans8081 family, ok homo sapiens and chimpanzee are the same kind.
"current family to another family" only by not understanding evolution can you say that. Also evolution isn't guided, so it would never be to another family. It would be a new family that does not exist prior.
Learning about geologi made scientists away from Biblical mythology.
PREACH
Brother, how are you, your family and church doing it's been a while. Last time you said it was well. Just checking in on the brethren. God's mighty hands upon you.
@gi169 we are all blessed... The Holy Spirit is moving and church attendance has increased.. we are praying for a bountiful harvest.. How are things with you my brotha? I appreciate you
@@michaeldennis3290
All is well with my soul.
Our God is awesome. Glad for your blessings. PTL
Would love to see a conversarion on evolution between Frank and Michael Jones from InspiringPhilosophy
How about an actual biologist
Why not from an actual scientist that can understand and explain evolution???
Frank is scientifically illiterate
It is called evolution by natural selection, not evolution by supernatural selection. God did not direct evolution.
The go to is how did all sexually reproductive animals have male and female
Seed/ egg libido food in mom just waiting for baby who has a suckling instinct….. really ?
All had to be in place simultaneously
Why?
@@drdisrespect5318 How so?
@@LordNinja109 Because definitely it takes someone with a plan, purpose, wisdom, creativity and power to create something so beautiful and unique as sexual organs and what it’s capable of doing.
So for me, an intelligent, Loving Creator… is far more believable.
@@drdisrespect5318 How do you demonstrate that?
@@LordNinja109 In our experience, things don’t just move or start to exist on their own. Therefore, we assume that there must be some “first cause” or “unmoved mover” that started everything in the first place.
I look at the complex nature of human beings: The eye and its location, the heart and its function, the brain (we cannot overstate; what humanity is accomplishing because of the brain). In fact, everything about humanity tells me that it did not just sprung up from nature. There is a great brain behind it.
In micahel Behe's book he stated that his hypothesis would be disproven, irreducible complexity, if you knocked out the bacterial flagella and the bacteria re-evolved this structure after subsequent natural selection. Perhaps if anyone at the discovery institute read papers they would know that that exact experiment had already been successfully completed, thus Behe's hypothesis was disproven before he could even finish his book. For some reason when you guys get repeatedly disproven, you still spout the same non-sense.
I tell you this as a christian myself, but this kind of stuff is really not good.
Discover institute is full of clowns
"Creation" is to "evolution" as "created" is to "made":
What is the difference between created and made?
The difference between something being created and something being made is that when something is created it is brought into existence out of nothing. But, when something is made it has been formed out of something else that already exists.
Creation implies a creator... Which no theist can support
Creation requires a Creator(which has been proven already) I think your implying the Law of Biogenesis and Abiogenesis when your talking of made/created. Because life exists so that other life can exist. This law of Biogenesis disproves abiogenesis(which states that life came out of nothing).
Therefore all the more reason why evolution is just a silly mythological fictional fairytale
@@logicalatheist1065Im afraid that you've been debunked sir. Hate to break it to you but evolution is false, and it's been proven.
With that being said, your not really a "logical atheist" because scientific logic doesn't back your position. Your stance is illogical and unrealistic.
@@isaiah55989 hate to break this to you, but you're delusional... I guess someone should tell the scientific community???!!!
No one has ever been close to debunking evolution, it's one of the best supported scientific facts, lmao... Can you support your statement??
@@isaiah55989 Atheism is the most logical and reasonable position as no god has ever been demonstrated to exist, try again
Everything came from nothing. Even goo comes from something
God is omnipresent. He is in poo. He is in the devil.
L: artificial selection might not be that easy especially in this limited time, but we came quite far with dogs. Or plants; not much was needed to get the variety of the Brassicaceae we eat
F: how about the mammalian earbones? We have some nice fossils for their evolution
I: mitochondria, cells can work without them in certain environments (hence some protists have none)
E: you didn't explain this one, a little more would be better than just referring to books
Lastly: scientific micro and macroevolution are defined differently: macro is more than 100 years or above the species level
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing. Small changes over long times build up.
Irreducible complexity is not a thing.
Your reliance on Discovery Institute talking just shows you to be dishonest and ignorant.
The thumbnail 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I KNEW i didn't come from no bacteria 🙏
No you came from nothing that turned into bacteria then to fish then to like monkeys then to humans lmao
@@iwatchfamilyguyI suggest you study biology
lol I love the last part. “Even if it does work then you still need God to drive it.”
Blindness assertions, terrible understanding of the data, God of the gaps arguments…all trademark Frank Turek😉
I'm so sick of hearing about their god of the gaps.
There are transitional fossils.
Every fossil is a transition fossil
@@logicalatheist1065 that's right.
Glad that apologist like Frank Turek have now started accepting evolution atleast at micro level given the abundance of evidence. But what i have studied is that there is enough evidence for evolution at macro level as well. Studies of Fossil records shows that speciation does happen.
The acceptance of microevolution, or small-scale changes within kinds, is a common ground. From a creationist viewpoint, the fossil record and the observed speciation can be understood within a framework that emphasizes the potential for significant diversification and adaptation within created kinds. These changes, as seen in the fossil record, align with a model that suggests life was created with the ability to fill the earth with diverse and well-adapted forms - a testament to the richness of God's creation and His provision for life in all its complexity and variety.
@@FaithfulJohn2031 any evidence on how did you conclude that life was created by God.
And saying life being created with purpose to fill earth is absurd, when you know that 99% of species which were on earth at one time are now extinct. so clearly Gods purpose and model failed.
Microevolution, though given a bad term, is something observable. Changes within a kind do not violate science. It’s adaptations that are arguably built-in to the animal’s DNA. Macroevolution however, simply does not happen. And there is no evidence for such a thing happening in the past, nor happening now. It’s an adult fairytale. There is no “fossil record”. What we find in fossils are 97% invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. The extremely small remainder is what evolutionists sort and assemble, and construct using preconceived notions, with a little bit of imagination and plaster of Paris. Darwin even noted the marked absence of “transitional fossils” is a huge problem for his belief. And we still haven’t found any transitional fossils. Like Turek said, for macroevolution to be true, there should literally be millions of them. But there isn’t.
It seems it's not against evolution but advocating for spontaneous generations of life or kinds. Micro evolution is fine but not macro evolution although there's no such a thing as macroevolution. Evolution is always micro evolution and in long time it turns to brunch out to various species and kinds. But what he means is not even that. That's what he means by no macroevolution, right? Then where did kinds come to be in the first place if no macroevolution nor long-term micro-evolution except spontaneous generations? Where did lions or giraffes come to be? The first pair of giraffes in fully formed, fully grown and fully matured, out of thin air? out from nowhere?
What are you asking?
@tTtt-ho3tq
The concept of kinds and their origins, as described in the creation account, speaks to the idea of fully formed, distinct creations. From a creationist viewpoint, the diversity we see, including lions and giraffes, is a reflection of this initial variety, with the potential for adaptation and speciation already present within these created kinds. This perspective aligns with the Genesis narrative of God creating plants and animals "after their kind," each with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth with a rich diversity of life.
@@FaithfulJohn2031 the creationist viewpoint conflicts with what we observe in reality.
@@Bomtombadi1
The conflict between the creationist viewpoint and what we observe in reality is a common point of contention. As a creationist, I've found that many aspects of the natural world, from the complexity of living organisms to the patterns in the fossil record, can be interpreted in ways that are consistent with a biblical worldview. While this perspective may differ from mainstream scientific thought, it offers a compelling framework for understanding the origins and diversity of life, one that's rooted in historical narrative and provides a coherent explanation for the complexities we see in the world around us.
@@FaithfulJohn2031 please elaborate on this and go into detail. Mean actual detail. Not superficially linking a bible passage to biology.
If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. -James 1: 5-8
And than they wonder why we Christians aren't taken srs. [FACEPALM] Every time Michael Bahe comes up I swear, I loose an ounce of respect for my fellow followers of Christ (not that I loose faith perse. just respect for people). EDIT: we do have intermediate fossils btw. [FACEPALM AGAIN].
L. There are no limits to genetic change in the code. Animals simply have to be similar enough to breed. We see with hybrid animals that if their genetic information is similar enough some can even remain fertile crossing the species lines we have defined.
I. Irreducible complexity assumes the functions of a mechanism are unchanging. Just because something needs all its current parts to perform its current function does not mean it didn’t serve a different function before.
F. The fossil record is completely consistent with gradualism. The Cambrian explosion still happened over millions of years and makes sense because as life evolved into Niches there was no competing life at that time. It’s like taking the predators out of an ecosystem. The other populations explode.
E. Yep life as we know it only exists in the constraints that DNA has been able to survive.
Evolution gets rid of god just fine.
Turek is excelent speaker. But, he ignores all data that are against his beliefs. Yes, science don't know everything. But, every day know little more.
If you are interested, listen to Forrest Valkai. His job is biology
All apologists are clowns.
That should solve that
God said, there's no such thing as an atheist.
9 quotes from 1 paragraph in the Bible. Romans 1:18-21 -
"revealed from heaven"
"who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth"
"what can be known about God is plain to them"
"God has shown it to them"
"have been clearly perceived"
"they are without excuse"
"they knew God"
"they became futile in their thinking"
"their foolish hearts were darkened"
....
❤I'll leave the gospel here:
So, how many lies have you told in your life?
How many hours of p*** have you watched?
Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
How many times have you used God's holy name as a cuss word?
How many times have you held a grudge in your heart?
How do you get to hell?
Very simple: claim that you're innocent.
How do you get to heaven?
Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy.
hell.
Ask him for mercy.
His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine.
The fine is death.
Ezekiel 18:20 -
"The soul who sins shall die."
That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy.
Option A.
You die for your own sins.
Option B.
Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died on the cross for you.
❤
**Honest questions are welcome.**
....
Nope, there are definitely atheists
Then your god is wrong…atheist here
If Jesus already paid the price for our sins, then our opinion or belief on the matter should be irrelevant.
Frank nailed it
Why do you believe that? Papers like, _"Allopolyploid Speciation in Tragopogon..."_ (Soltis, 1989) prove evolution causes speciation, and that's how macro evolution is defined.
Meanwhile we have no evidence of any other forces at work.
So it's like (a) having evidence of gravity (and the rest of physics, like momentum, air viscosity, etc), and (b) having evidence of the last 4 secs of a baseball's trajectory as it crashed through your window. Using that precise trajectory, you can reverse-engineer where the ball came from and that's the best guess (given your current evidence).
Turek's argument is like someone arguing the ball was thrown by a god:
* he ignores the evidence we do have (we know how gravity would affect the ball's flight path prior to the window),
* he invents an idea that's completely non-evidenced (we don't have evidence of a god; not throwing a hypothetical baseball, nor manipulating the design of life/humans)
@@majm4606that's why hitchens and other atheists can best him so easily in debates
Papers like, _"Allopolyploid Speciation in Tragopogon..."_ (Soltis, 1989) prove evolution causes speciation, and that's how macro evolution is defined. So we know this force is causing significant change in organisms over time. Meanwhile we have no evidence of any other forces. So why do you think Frank "nailed it" here? Just seems like he isn't familiar with reality (with the observations science has made).
@@majm4606 you really believe your ancestors were monkeys🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@logicalatheist1065 Huh? All I’ve ever seen from Hitchens and the like is to come up with imbecilic strawman arguments. I’ve never seen Hitchens so easily beat anything.
That was the biggest wad of doodoo I have ever heard. None of those arguments make sense.
Just one thing. Fossilization is incredibly rare!!!! So the lack of transition fossils is not a thing.