Darwin DEBUNKED: Using Breakthroughs In Math & Science (14 Minute Density!) 

At the bottom of the glass atheism awaits.

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.' - Werner Heisenberg" Its a lie. Heisenberg never said that. Typical for theist to lie over the backs of famous scientist. Sad...

Heisenberg said that whom is spreading this ridiculousness and why?

​@@kos-mos1127Great comeback lol.

Classic quote

I will agree with you for your mom's healing in Yeshua's Name, Amen!

Fast + prey + ask/sow in tears and miraculously reep in joy

May God rain down grace and mercy on her always.

If God cures illnesses, then why does God hate amputees?

It's gods plan

Have you tried listening to and learning from scientists who actually work in the relevant areas? Meyer is a right wing activist at a Christian fundamentalist pressure group. Berlinski is a failed academic with no training in the life sciences Gelernter is a crank with a background in computer science. NONE has the remotest clue about biology

If you believe in intelligent design, why become a Christian as opposed to some other religion ?

@@charleswrightman205 I spent about eight months in Beirut, 82-83, during that time, I felt like God was watching through the whole occupation. We took the PLO on our ships, back to "the territories", displaced the IDF and we were very well accepted by the Lebanese people. It was the natural thing to do for me. I am still a man of faith to this day.

My grandparents moved from Ireland to Scotland about 100 years ago. I learned science at school. You didn't study DNA enough. End of.

@mcmanustony actually... if you were listening.... he studied at a time when the "cell" was called the simple cell.... and not a lot of people questioned Darwin's hypothesis. Nowadays, we all know there is no evidence to support the evolutionary hypothesis... none! Maybe you need to study some more!

That is a really concise way of capturing the problem.

reproduction is the way in which organisms overcome "disassembly" (known in science as entropy), and sexual reproduction is the way in which complex organisms maintain healthy genetics in their populations over time. What they are saying is also a straw man, because very few modern scientists working in the field of evolution will tell you that it all happened by random point mutations. There are obviously many other factors at play, that are still being discovered and studied.

What's dumb about this video is it thinks this is how it works: One random, huge mutation happens, and somehow it is the lucky one that drastically changes an organism for the better. THAT NOT HOW IT IS. Every organism has thousands of subtle mutations. Every one that's born is different. An environmental stressor happens that allows some of them to survive a BIT better and reproduce. Therefore that gene gets into the gene pool. Now repeat that millions upon billions of times and you will have a great number of vastly different organisms, similar to how in only thousands of years we were able to morph the wolf into all kinds of monstrosities (dogs)

Good thing there is selection pressure.

@hamnchee Wouldn’t selection pressure make it far less likely that the beneficial mutation needed is present?

You should quit inserting some magical being.

And created fearfully, also.

@@rhpicayune Fear requires a brain that may present fear, simple cells may be blissfully unaware of fear, it is us higher ups that shit ourselves in the face of life, death and everything.

you forgot to add: "and naturally".

This world and everything in it runs with the precision of a swiss watch.... utterly unbelievable how amazing our God is....I can sit and just marvel for hours at his creation.... There is a gigantic fireball in the sky that keeps us all alive and warm.... Are you freaking kidding me..... I try to respect other people's belief but an atheist is an absolute.......

i paid for my dog to notice when i give her food , now she can tell the time because she knows when to expect food....that's how awesome I am...thats more awesome than you teaching your daughter

@@zoelong6021 Show me a dog, paid or not, that doesn't notice when they are given food.

Meyer is an idiot, he doesn't even believe in evolution, and dodged the basic questions joe rogan threw at him on evolution. Biochemistry is a much better choice than art, so I guess something good came out of reading his book.

@@rl7012 No one stated that an unpaid dog would fail to notice food. Food was used in the argument for the sake of two reasons: To parody the silliness of a man paying his daughter to read a book, and to distract the unwary-just as the superfluous advanced mathematics in this video are used to convince viewers that smart people don't believe in evolution.

@@zoelong6021 Now I'm torn. Do I treat your statement as serious and delusional or ironic and delusional?

And what was the outcome?

@@therick363 depends who you’re asking lol. I believe I won, as did many other viewers. My opponent provided no proof of his claims, just conjecture. I provided all the mathematical and scientific facts so I would say I won for sure 😜

@@amandacarmel6084 okay. Which “side” did you represent?

@@therick363 intelligent design

But isn't the theory of evolution (or darwinism) still pretty accurate? I mean even our AI training is based on it and it works incredibly well...

How is deliberate mis-representation moral?

Meyer is a professional liar and Berlinski is a failed academic who was routinely fired from a succession of part time teaching assistant gigs. Have you ever considered the notion of listening to people who actually know what they are talking about?

​@@mcmanustony That's so lame- But I guess going after them personally is best you can do, when you're on wrong side of truth-

@@eirecoleen oh give it a rest. I’m sure your position would be the same if Dawkins was caught lying about degrees he doesn’t have, academic positions he’s never held, work with famous scientists that doesn’t exist….Berlinski is guilty of that and much more. He’s a pathetic fraud. I’m sure you’d be dismissive of criticism of SJ Gould had cheated the review process to sneak a useless essay into an inappropriate journal of research, fabricated quotes to misrepresent a scientist, lied about the focus of an academic conference he took no active part in lying in particular about the work of one presenter…. These are not honest people genuinely criticizing orthodoxy- they are liars and cranks pushing religion.

@@eirecoleen pompous bullshit. How can liars be on the side of truth. Do you know how books work?

These are three charlatans blowing gas on subjects they know nothing about.

🤣

I suppose that would be the question if he hadn't all seen it happen in most of our lifetimes. Antibiotic resistance is that very thing the guy describes as an "amazingly rare neckslaces of protein that can be stuck in a cell to actually do anything." 100 Years ago no bacteria had anti biotic resistance. Now almost every bacteria in a hospital carries it. A simple mutation, allowing for the cell wanna not to pop upon replication in the presence of antibiotics which is how most antibiotics work by the way has had a profound effect on all our health cares. It seems his question has been answered with a resounding, it has happened and is documented.

​@@robertmorrison107That's a great point

@@robertmorrison107 how do we know 100 years ago that NO bacteria had antibiotic resistance? we couldn't read DNA 100 years ago.

​@@robertmorrison107That's adaptation, not evolution. It didn't create new species of bacteria. Unless you are prepared to call Sherpas a separate species of human.

Well said. I believe that were it not for the fact that creationism supports the notion of God, the evolutionists could not care less and might even be able to have intellectual discussions rather than insulting anyone with a different opinion as mentally challenged. This is about people who pretend they don’t care about God getting very upset with anyone else believing in God. Why would they care if I am stupid? This is interesting.

No, what is amazing is people still make this argument.

No these things are not talked about. You must seek them out.

@@jamesjaudon8247 These things are absolutely talked about and we can have such a discussion any time. The reason you don't find much of this is because biologists do not have an agenda in their research. They're looking for natural explanations, because metaphysical explanations (like god did it) is not an explanation at all. They found explanations that work and others that don't work. They report the ones that they think might work - like any other field of science.

@@kevinkelly2162 Can you point me to something that puts this argument to bed?

@@MrNikkiNoo Read a few evolutionary biology textbooks, watch a few RU-vid videos by Forrest Valkai or Gutsick Gibbon.

The trump card that is sometimes used to usurp flawed theories is the ol Multiverse option where anything goes. But when infinity is invoked it also includes an infinite number of universes where God is the creator and designer and operator. Infinite Multiverse is just a surrender device and another line of thinking but it includes just as much as it attempts to exclude.

"that no one has gone from chemistry to biology in a lab" Each step of the process has been done in a lab.

​@@friisteching3433Are you saying they created life in a lab? That is a bold and preposterous statement. As time goes by the knowledge we have gained moves the goalposts of abiogenesis farther and farther away.. Dr. Tour has a series of videos on the origin of life and its failings. Tour is one of the top ten chemist's in the world on top of everything.

@@friisteching3433

​@@friisteching3433Not true. Cite the research

Nonsense.

sooo are you implying that an alien race, to this day unknown to us, might have, interntionally or not, contributed in small or big ways to the formation and evolution of life as we know it?

you were doing well until you got to the last phrase. i am not saying that there is no possibility of planets resenbling the earth because the sheer number of possibility are in the millions. however if you believe in Creation and a creator. the earth has to be the first planet where first humans and 1/3 of the angels turned their back on god .and we have not yet come to the point where the precedent beyond proof that the creation cant decide on its own without God's guidance its own way. we see the proof of the contrary everyday in the world Man cannot find his own way without God's guidance. and soon God will send his son again to take over the earth and restablish God's kingdom and repair everything the great experiment destroyed . since our sun is a young sun, and if there are intelligent people on other planet , the angels would have rebelled a long time ago on another earth in the deep older universe. therefore it would not have been necessary to prove a second time that creation cannot by itself without the help of God's guidance rule itself. therefore there might be animals on other planets but no humanlike intelligent being created in the image of God.

@@chikkipop explain yourself there buddy. That’s a pretty lazy answer.

@@mirrov246 no, but some people that I don’t agree with have hypothesized that. It’s a cop-out in my opinion. Just kicking the ball further down the road.

They are not using it in any technical sense It’s just useless bafflegab

Yes, I was watching Brian Cox talking about 'information' in black holes and realised the more recent widening of the word's meaning

Welcome! Also, great name! 🙌 Link in the description

You fucking idiots know they just dated the universe to being 26.7 billion years old now not 13.

Makes sense but doesn't relate to the discussion. God could have created the evolutionary process, and thus it could be understandable, and yet you could still meet god in your heart. The disconnect between science and religion is not in faith vs. knowledge, but in taking the bible literally vs. the evidence from reality.

I agree! Humility is the key, but I'm not convinced that intellectuals are less prone to embrace it. There are many brilliant people who do not become intellectuals because the latter requires an enormous amount of one's time inwardly invested in the life of the mind. The human mind cannot comprehend God, so for many intellectuals, "God" is a concept that's not worth thinking about because advancement of human understanding of the concept is extremely limited. However, if one is humble enough to realize that there is something outside of one's mind that is worth engaging in and interacting with, the possibility of recognizing that a God exists becomes much more likely. Some of the greatest intellectuals exist within the Christian churches. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Pope Benedict XVI come to mind.

I disagree. I can easily explain intellectually to anyone, and have done many many times, why God exists, and why Jesus is God. It is self evident, yes, but also the more you think about it the more true it becomes. The closer we look at molecules, atoms, cells, DNA, gravitational effects, etc. with science, the more glaringly obvious it becomes that there is a indeed Creator. When people rely only on their own intellect, they are prideful and arrogant, an easy target for the devil. What it comes down to, with EVERY SINGLE ATHEIST I have ever spoken to, is an emotional rejection of God. Every time, without fail. Once you cast down their weak arguments and deflections in the name of Christ, they say "God let this bad thing happen to me, or these bad things happen to these other people (people who I don't even care about) so therefore God is a big meany!" It's pride, arrogance, extremely over valued sense of self. In their eyes they can do no wrong, their mistakes aren't their own, none of our mistakes are our own, therefore God is somehow bad in their eyes. They value themselves above God.

Hubris is a hell of a drug!

"Using your heart" means that you will believe what your emotions tell you, what you want to believe. It is not a very efficient tool : anyone can believe anything, and that explains the diversity of human religions... Muslims will use this tool to believe in Allah, Taiwanese to believe in Mazu and Zoroastrians to believe in Ahura Mazda... People have even visions of them ! Christianity is not special in this aspect.

1. Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution. The underlying processes for both are exactly the same. 2. The Cambrian radiation took between 10-20 million years depending on where you define the start/stop. Why is that not enough time for evolution to work? 3. The fossil record shows life existed on Earth for at least 3 billion years before the Cambrian radiation, including 100 million years of multicellular life. Your explanation is...?

So you accept micro but not macro. I suppose you mean spicies to spicies are ok but not to kinds, right? Then where did they come from? I'm not asking how did they. I'm simply asking where did they come from, the materials, bodies, bones, flesh, skins, etc. Where did they come from? Did God from them from the dirt or clay like he did with Adam, and then breath life in or something? In other words, non-living material things to living things? Each and every one of them kinds? Or spontaneously appeared out of thin air? Where did they come from if it's not been evolved, micro and macro (longer time)?

Meyer misappropriates terms such as 'code' and 'information' to mis-describe processes laymen have no understanding of, leading us to draw misleading conclusions.

Meyer is a joke. He literally fails to point out that a mutation only needs to occur in a single maned of an entire species. Then that positive gene expression is bred into the species and thrives. It comically laughs at his lottery analogy. Making the math far more sustainable.

Or in other words, a moron.

@@rastrats Information (i.e. code) is IMMATERIAL and comes ONLY from a MIND, i.e. from the programmer, a code writer. A DNA which is the manual (i.e. instruction, i.e. information) for our organism of how to work is fully packed with information. Let me quote R. Dawkins - The blind watchmaker, pp. 115-116 "As I mentioned at the end of Chapter 1, there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. I don't know the comparable figure for a willow seed or an ant, but it will be of the same order of staggeringness. There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas." Information / instruction in a DNA is a dead end to the atheism. Get over it.

@@deviouskris3012 The e-coli experiment in which the e-coli went through a gzillion mutations, didn't produce a tiger. It remained an e-coli.

But it's not published by PragerU... it's the Hoover Institution.

@@Si_Mondo i think it was reposted by prager U when I saw it. Regardless, I didnt even know who pragerU was at the time and still dont care, it had nothing to do with the message presented.

This video was posted today, and "years ago" you sent it to your friend? What kind of a time machine do you use?

This video was posted today, yes. The video Daily Dose of Wisdom is reacting to was not posted today. It took me 10 seconds to find the original video, since it's in the description. This may not be the same for you, but the video is also at the top of my recommended now. It was posted four years ago, and it was originally recorded about five years ago. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-noj4phMT9OE.html Do better and have a nice day

@@cinny. I am always surprised at the rabbit holes people like @satchelsatchel go down. So they don't have to deal with what is being said.

"n 1986 in high we talked about how there was not enough time for Darwin's Evolution to take place." This was wrong back thenand still is... "Because no matter how you study it, if you are honest, the subject of creation comes into play...." It really does not...the only ones insisting on that fallacious conclusion is the entire ilk of pseudoscientists who work for or are affiliated with the ill-named Discovery Institute. A right wing Christian propaganda mill, where they do no research at all, none, and of which one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-noj4phMT9OE.htmlsi=x8CVvwdHlzlXuVN_

Don't you prefer listening to people who have a basic idea what the hell they're talking about? Meyer is a hack, a lying activist at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group. Not a scientist of any kind. Berlinski, despite the ridiculous introduction, is no more a mathematician than he's the queen of the Netherlands. Gelernter did important work in computing science some decades ago- work of ZERO relevance to biology, of which his ignorance is colossal. These are not brilliant minds honestly discussing important scientific questions. You're looking at grifters and poseurs peddling religious nonsense for money.

This video is a smokescreen of gibberish. Darwin's theory is simple and it's based on rock solid logic. The taller giraffe can reach the leaves, so more tall giraffes are born. Short giraffes starve, so no more short giraffes. End of story.

@@satchelsatchel what does this have to do with my comment?

⁠@@satchelsatchelbrother…respectfully laughing at your comment because you do not understand Darwin’s theory. What you described is ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION. “The taller Giraffe can reach the trees so more taller giraffes are born” is Adaptation, occurring within one species and producing changes yet preserving the species being acted upon… Darwin’s theory of Evolution would rephrase your statement to say something like “The Zebra is too short to reach the leaves of the tree, so the Zebras began giving birth to Giraffes until all the Zebras had been completely replaced by the new, ‘better equipped for survival’, species that is Giraffe.” Never has such a thing occurred in nature. There is ZERO evidence of this in the fossil record. And I mean absolutely NONE.

@@satchelsatchelto state a different way… if we had evolved from Apes, there would be ZERO Apes in existence today, because evolving from Apes necessitates that the first humans were birthed by Apes. The implications of such a scenario would therefore be that these first humans born from Apes would have been raised as Apes and among Apes. Being an evolved species better equipped for survival than both the Apes that birthed them and those of their generation birthed as Apes of old, this major advantage would quickly lead to the eradication of Apes from existence as the new species of human would dominate them out of existence.

Scientists do not guess, what a ridiculous assertion! Scientists like nothing better than discrediting the work of other scientists, this is just one reason it works so well. On the other hand, there's zero evidence for your claimed Jesus.

"This whole conversation was for me like listening to a foreign language"- no, it's just three arrogant poseurs babbling about science they know damn all about.

Let me ask adult theists the following: If god is an intelligent creator of the universe then he must have designed you to crap out dirty filthy stinking turds, to have stinking farts, and sometime have stinking wet farts in public. Now after you have a crap have a good look down the toilet at your excrement and think to yourself the intelligent designer designed you to do that. Now evolution doesn't have such a problem, it is simply a product of nature not a designer. Further if Jesus had healing powers why didn't the people find out where he crapped, collect his turds and use them to cure people? Holy crap they would have coined it in. Did Jesus ever say : I have a parable to tell you but I must go for a crap first? Did he fart in front of his disciples?Jesus supposedly fed the five thousand,where did the five thousand crap and pee? Did it not occur to Jesus to miraculously create toilet blocks with flush toilets, hand wash basins, electric hot air hand driers, showers, towels, soft toilet paper etc. No, You want a fairy tale Jesus who didn't crap, fart, have wet farts or go for a pee. You are all deluded!

Have you ever considered listening to people who actually know that they’re talking about

these guys are *not* brilliant, but they sure think they are and they sure fool the rockeaters into believing they are you think it is just some giant conspiracy by the evil, god-hating atheist scientists to prop up something that is so obviously false? do me a favor. explain to me what the probabilities are that these dipshits are pointing to and explain how the probabilities are calculated. the dumbasses do not have a clue what they're talking about.

Your incredulity is not proof of a god.

​@@byteme9718 if not evolution or God, what other story you got???

​​​Right back at you, sh!tbrain. The staggering lack of self-awareness inherent in atheism is expressed every time they exempt themselves from the critiques they apply to others, but which they also apply to themselves. Your personal views on a deity are not an argument against the existence of a deity.

​@@deanmace8465 The evidence for evolution is as overwhelming as it is indisputable. In contrast there's zero evidence for any claimed random god. I go with the evidence for the same reason I wouldn't be comfortable having a baker perform brain surgery.

@@byteme9718 well it is definately not "evolution". If you read my response it does not defend or prove Gods existance. It states the facts and odds for thought...which you seem not to have in actually thinking about the ludracracy that evolution may even try to exist. So other than evolution, the big bang or God...what then is your reason for existance other than creation? Waiting to hear anything even nearly logical from you and your kind

_I suggest to everyone that there is proof that creatures can change._ Not only can species change we have a thorough understanding of the genetic mechanisms causing the changes which then get acted on by selection. Creationists refuse to learn or understand any of the science involved.

He's like the 60 year old woman that goes to a Poison concert dressed in the same outfit she wore to a Poison concert in the 80s.

Perfect! Cannot I see the Fonz!

Yes!😂 I thought the same thing!

Personally, I dig his style. In that discussion he’s a generally unimpressed grump; kinda reminds me of House MD 😅

Baseless assertion....presented with zero evidence.......dismissed without further consideration.

@@mcmanustony huh... Did you read the whole thing? Adaptation yes, evolution no. It's ok, this is just my opinion, I'm not a biologist or nothing... definitely a theist though

@@-I-Use-Punctuation Why not learn some evolutionary biology before posting idiotic comments about it? You might as well be railing against algebraic topology ....then demonstrating you can't count to ten.

@@mcmanustony do you not think creatures can physically adapt to their environments? If so where do you presume that information is stored?

@@mcmanustony physical adaptation is a fact, domesticated pigs loose their hair and tusks for example but random mutation as Darwin puts it could never create successful life, their needs to be intelligent design. Oh & your a rude ass prick faced bitch btw✌️have the day you deserve

Where did God's information come from?

@@BFizzi719 From Him. THE Creator, by definition can not be creatED. These created gods we call idols. Now, FO.

The shape of Denmark's coastline is a lot of information. Which mind did it come from?

@@adayah2933 From God. Read Genesis 1. In the beginning (time), God created heavens (space/universe) and the earth (matter), all 3 at the same time, as it is in the Einstein's theory of General relativity (the universe had a beginning and it's expanding - 2nd law of thermodynamics), ie. the so called "Big Bang" - term coined by astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle. After that God made it more concrete ... And God SAID ... and God SAID ... and He let sea and wind do their job. But, no matter what one says or how many arguments one gives you (the fine tunning argument, the Goldilocks zone and so on - 1000000% science: math, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.), you will never accept it, because it's not me or the science, it's you. So, all I can say, God bless you, and I hope God will show you the way out of that atheistic bs.

@@adayah2933 From God. Read Genesis 1. In the beginning (time), God created heavens (space/universe) and the earth (matter), all 3 at the same time, as it is in the Einstein's theory of General relativity (the universe had a beginning and it's expanding - 2nd law of thermodynamics), ie. the so called "Big Bang" - term coined by astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle. After that God made it more concrete ... And God SAID ... and God SAID ... and He let sea and wind do their job. But, no matter what one says or how many arguments one gives you (the fine tunning argument, the Goldilocks zone and so on - 1000000% science: math, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.), you will never accept it, because it's not me or the science, it's you. So, all I can say, God bless you, and I hope God will show you the way out of that atheistic bs.

I'm sorry to interject here. Your son is absolutely right. If you don't see it then you didn't understand the actual implication of the analogy. Given infinite monkey and infinite time, any random string of any random length of letters becomes inevitable. The point is in this being an *infinite* thought experiment. People can't picture infinity easily :)

The analogy is not really analogous, because the first sentence is all you need, and the alphabet is only 4 letters long. Once you've got a viable sentence sitting in the sunshine among a load of unused letters, it copies itself, and the copies copy themselves, or pick up part-sentences that aren't able to copy themselves, or copy a bit inaccurately (mostly with neutral or bad effects, but occasionally in ways which make future copying easier or more accurate) etc. etc.

@@PastPresented Exactly. Thats why you don't need to randomly come up with a whole human genome. That, of course, would be statistically "impossible". But thats not what any biologist is posing. Not even darwin.

@@PastPresented "The analogy is not really analogous, because the first sentence is all you need, and the alphabet is only 4 letters long. Once you've got a viable sentence sitting in the sunshine among a load of unused letters, it copies itself, and the copies copy themselves, or pick up part-sentences that aren't able to copy themselves, or copy a bit inaccurately (mostly with neutral or bad effects, but occasionally in ways which make future copying easier or more accurate) etc. etc." how was any of these proven mathematically and scientifically as applied to the human cells? Is this all just somoe clever imaginations?

@@tivmegoThis isn't about cells, it's about the earliest precursors to cells. Finding the connections between the earliest precursors and the earliest fossil organisms requires reverse-engineering many millions of years of planetary-scale activity. Religions tend not to bother with that sort of hard work.

So you're saying that among scientists, there is an intentional effort to withhold factual information that would refute a widely-accepted scientific conclusion?

" because they want the public to accept evolution" Why on earth would they want that? They have no interest in what the public thinks, why would they? they are purely interested in the evidence and the facts that the evidence supports. " Most lay persons don't realize the many problems inherent in the Darwinian model of evolution." Oh, and you do? What problems are you referring to? be careful here.. And while you are at it, what evolution outside the Darwin model are you referring to?

@@BFizzi719 , not exactly. My background is in biology. Most of the biologists I have ever met know that DARWINIAN evolution is probably wrong. Although they accept that evolution is real, they have yet to devise a model that is robust enough to replace Darwinianism. All of this is very hard to explain to lay folk, so biologists sort of leave the idea in place that Darwinianism is solid. Once you advance in biological study, however, you learn all of the drawbacks of the Darwinian model. There are many excellent books and articles on the flaws of Darwin's model. Check them out.

@@forrest7050 , biologists BELIEVE that evolution is real, and that it is grounded in science. So of COURSE they want the public to believe this as well. Rejecting science causes all sorts of problems in the modern world, which is based upon information. Moreover, if enough people oppose evolution, scientists may find it hard to get funding for research into evolution.

How do you know what most lay persons have realized? How have you assessed and measured the realizations reached by most lay persons? How do you know what scientists want? You think that scientists care about what the public accepts? The public is too stupid to know what evolution is. The Darwinian model is undeniable: Giraffes eat leaves, the leaves are high up, so the short giraffes starve-no more short giraffes. It's that simple.

Evolution doesn't work by just chance. There is the non-random feedback from selection too. Fail.

@@sciencerules2825 selection doesn’t apply to the first/simplest living cell. Fail response.

@@ian9toes Selection applies as soon as you have imperfect self-replicators competing for limited resources. That happens in prebiotic chemistry long before the first cell appears. Go research the literature on *prebiotic evolution.* The fail is all yours.

It’s just evolution. Darwin isn’t Jesus and even then 3 guys who don’t know what a codon is isn’t gonna prove anything

Evolution is science fact, get over it.

a simpering non mathematician interviews three non mathematicians who pose no mathematical objections to anything........ holy shitballs it takes little to impress you.

Wonder if it will ever dawn on you that creationists are LYING about it being dead - they just want you to *believe* that. As long as you believe despite the facts of reality, they can keep you enthralled. That's what they want from you. Have a good time with that.

@@SweetPea92578 before pompously telling people who know more than you to go to school, you should be trying to salvage an education for yourself. Allele frequencies change in any given population over time. This is a FACT of evolution. The THEORY of evolution is the explanation of the facts. This is very very basic…..wind your mouth down, take a seat and try to grasp it before lecturing others .

guess it depends on how you define thought. as I understand it, thought would require self-awareness, which seems to require some form of "being-hood"

@@muxion Hmmmm . . . Perhaps "pure" thought. Awareness of that fact one has thought and can project it in some manner.

DNA is "not alive" by any definition. You're welcome to try again if you'd like.

So, is God a living thing by the same definition of living or are you going to special plead that when living things are created, that's different "because reasons."

@@jesterlead "DNA is "not alive" by any definition." He didn't say that DNA was alive. I would criticise his comment by saying that it was Louis Pasteur that established that it takes living things to produce more living things, well before DNA was discovered. But the information content of DNA is yet another (massive) piece of evidence against evolution.

@@RustyWalker "So, is God a living thing by the same definition of living..." What definition? He didn't provide one. But God is an intelligent being able to make decisions and choices. In that sense, yes, God is a living being.

@@PJRayment I never said they did. I asked if God was living by the *same definition of "living" that they used in "living things." Your attempt to define "living" in a way that includes excluded 99% of living things. Furthermore, the argument implicitly entails reproduction, which Christians do not claim to be an ability of God, so no, He isn't by the same definition and the argument was invalid.

You established that the universe was created? Where?

@@mcmanustonyI didn't, Edwin Hubble did when he identified the expansion of the universe, indicating a point source. This falsifies the notion of a steady state universe which has always existed. The other corollary is to recognise the universe cannot have come into existence by itself and that it is not able to sustain itself therein. These last intellectual steps are simple metaphysical logic.

@@stephenconnolly1830 The evidence is that the universe originated from a singularity. That singularity was also the beginning of time itself. The universe therefore did not "come into existence" for that to be the case there would need to be a time t at which it did not exist. There is no such t. Thanks for the word salad....

@@mcmanustony what happened before time t = 0? No universe! Thanks for the illogic.

@@stephenconnolly1830 Wrong. There is NO BEFORE t=0. have you tried books?

I like your questions but I think they are wasted on this forum !

in what sense? Meyer is a lying Christian activist, Gelernter hasn't published any new work in years and never has in any life science. Berlinski is a nasty bitter old fraud, a failed academic who pretentiously and dishonestly presents himself as a mathematician. How fantastic!

you mispelt ignorance and confirmation bias

It’s bester still to pay some heed to people who actually know what they’re talking about. These three frauds are a sick joke.

Um actually it being more complicated helps him also Darwin was a christian while writing his theory. He stop believing when his daughter died. All the early church fathers And dark age rabbis believed it was old.

He did not say that

@@TheHandofJove u could research it for yourself instead of taking answers in genisis word for it

@@TheHandofJove I decided to research if he was always athies

​@@r.a.panimefan2109 No, he wasn't, his book reeks of atheist Ideology. No Christian would ever pen such an idea

Three religious windbags pontificating about evolutionary biology which none of them understand even a little. What could possibly go wrong? 🙂

So where is your explanation for the evidence that the majority of science accept? You can't just dismiss a theory without replacing at least some of it. And God did that is not an explanation.

​@@kevinkelly2162You can question it. If your only background is reading a book you're basically doing what religious people you like to oppose are doing, reading a book and hope they are not lying because you can't prove it.

Correct. The beginning of the universe from "nothing" stunningly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Living things also violate it but briefly.

@@kevinkelly2162 I can dismiss a theory if the evidence doesn't support the theory, regardless of whether I have a better alternative. Your logic is why people accept nonsense; the only reason people even entertain evolution is because the alternative explanation requires intentional action to create.

@@DVN5381 Unfortunately for you the evidence does support the theory. In fact, the theory is based wholly on the evidence and the best explanation for it according to the scientific method. On the other hand there's not a shred of evidence for a god creating anything or even existing.

Tell me you know nothing about evolution without telling me you know nothing about evolution. You do realise, there is literally REAMS of information to answer your question, if you only had the guts to ask it. But nope, instead you simply choose to put your faith in your cognitive ability to reason, which informs you that learning to fly is impossible, and you go on your merry way.

@@tenmilesfm You haven't begun to point me in the direction of answering the question. Like i said, learning to fly aside. If you're so well acquainted with the REAMS of information, generally speaking, how did the process of anatomical evolution go? Did the flightless mammal first evolve porous, hollow bones, or wings? And how could the adaptation have gone in between so that it wasn't a tremendous hinderance to the species- i.e. a mammal with appendages that are no longer legs that can be walked on, but are not even close to being aerodynamically capable of gliding or flight? What was the sequence, in brief?

Now that i've looked it up, it's even more clear that unguided, accidental evolution from a non-flying animal to a flying one is impossible. The innumerable adaptations that would have had to take place- over millennia- would have been counterproductive to the species' survival even if they were somehow impossibly accidentally arrived at one by one. The changes in bone composition, density, and structure, the musculature, the aerodynamics of wing and body design, the specialized feathers and lungs, the incomprehensible intricacies of brain programming and function necessary. That all these things and more could come about one by one, by sheer accident, and withstand the demands of survival and breeding is completely incredible. It's in keeping with the way of thinking that a monkey could, theoretically, type a Shakespeare play- if given enough time. If you gave me, an English speaking poet, ten thousand years to reproduce one of Shakespeare's plays without reference, i surely could never get past the first few sentences- no matter how hard i tried. I simply don't know how they go, and without knowing where i was correct, or at which point i deviated, it would be impossible. How much moreso a million or however many monkeys, whose combined intelligence doesn't add up to that of a man- since putting things or people in the same room doesn't cause them to combine. The millions of hypothetical monkeys of blind, unintentional fate that supposedly scripted the work of art that is a small bird wouldn't have fared any better.

@@SeeSawMassacre You've spent what, half an hour actually looking it up now, and within that time you are sufficiently an enough of an expert to counter the work of hundreds of biologists, paleontologists etc? Impressive.

@@SeeSawMassacre RU-vid is just not posting any of my replies now, will try again later.

Ahhh it's not new

it doesn't challenge my worldview at all.

Here he goes. If you’re playing the probability game then it should. If you’re playing the cognitive bias game then go ahead and keep your previous athiesm. You good ole random clump of cells and atoms that’s in the comment section due to naturalistic processes instead of free will.

​@@downshift4503Suuuuure. That's why you're here, definitely.

Must be a moral nihilist.

This circle-jerk of personal incredulity doesn't challenge anything. Challenging is done by research and peer reviewed publication. Something intelligent design proponents are unsurprisingly devoid of.

The universe is a big place and has been here a long time, that's a lot of shuffles. Inventing a god only adds to the complexity and further increased the odds.

Statistically there have not yet, in all of history, been 2 randomly shuffled decks of cards that gave the same result

@@mattneilson644 Decks have not been shuffled throughout all of history. Of course, if you were to run that simulation on a computer, as an analogy for abiogenesis, you couldn't use just two decks. You'd have to continuously use as many decks as there were opportunities for life to develop.

@@byteme9718 matter that creates itself, orders itself by rules, organizes itself into more and more complex life capable of contemplating its own existence - even if it isn't a god by your definition - you have to admit it's not far off.

@@karikaru Einstein proved matter comes from no matter, what you suggest are rules is something called physics which underpins chemistry that creates more complex atoms and molecules. Life began at some point and we're probably not far off discovering how that happened. Evolution, we know, is fact and he we are with compromised bodies and minds. Is that impressive? Yes of course. Is it unusual or unique? With 400 billion stars in our galaxy, one trillion galaxies and 13 billion years, most likely not. It could easily be that life is inevitable just as the creation of our universe may have been.

It doesn’t address creation- just like the germ theory of disease address plate tectonics. Evolution is a powerful, testable theory of the development of life.

_" Once one of the protein sequences comes together you got minutes not years for the second one to come together"_ What process are you describing?

I have come to the same conclusion you have. Very few creationists, it seems, recognize this missing piece of the puzzle; mere chemicals must have had a thought and a plan. How many of these random chance it would have taken for the development of an animal that flies? And that before flight even existed. Those clever proteins knew of the principles of flight and took it from there!

Thinking themselves wise, they become fools.

That’s the problem of consciousness in a nutshell. There are insurmountable gaps in the scientific story. It’s great that science is doing the work to uncover the mysteries that can be uncovered, but there are some mysteries which are beyond science.

Tell me you don't understand evolution without saying you don't understand evolution. Care to explain the behaviour and evolutionary nature of viruses? 'so glaringly obvious that atheists are too "smart" for their own good to even see them' - because only atheists believe in Evolution. Seriously, do you guys even spend two minutes thinking about the nonsense that flops out of your mouths before you hit the 'reply' button?

rubbish. Nature itself is doing the selection.

It appears so. AND PEOPLE BELIEVE THEM !!!

Proteins are needed in cells and the instructions to make them are encoded within DNA. Sounds a lot like "intention".

@@ronaldmorgan7632 Thanks. I DO have a Bio degree. Modern cells have modern proteins *now* but what we see is a selection of simple metabolic pathways that exist in all life, and phylogenetics shows beyond reasonable doubt that common descent is true. That's why these clowns are trying to deceive people by abusing probability theory to people who only know the basic stuff like coin flips.

The problem is that people have a very poor sense of probability because they don’t understand how to calculate the entire space of possibilities. First off, it doesn’t matter in which order the winning numbers of a lottery are chosen by the players and by the lottery: when it comes to synthesizing a protein, the order matters: if there are six winning numbers, but the order matters, then you have an additional 1 out of 720 odds to beat. Secondly, Powerball’s first 5 numbers are drawn from a pool of 69 numbers WITHOUT REPEATING. In protein synthesis, an amino acid can be repeated multiple times. It’s the difference between 69 factorial divided by 64 factorial, and 69 to the power of 5. Imagine how few 9 digit numbers would be expressible if a digit is not repeated (123456789 is okay, but 112345678 is forbidden.) the answer is 9 factorial, or 362880, which is a lot less than 999999999…) In powerball, missing one number still gets you SOMETHING: in protein synthesis, a missing amino acid creates a missed protein. Another issue is that, unlike powerball, an Amino acid can only participate ONCE: if you postulate a process that breaks up bad “proteins” into their constituent Amino acids so they can keep participating in the protein synthesis dance, then “good” proteins would also be broken up. How can a blind process determine if a protein will be useful? That would be sneaking intelligence into a “random” system, as if it was Maxwell’s Demon for proteins. And finally, there is the proximity issue: winning the protein lottery doesn’t give you a cell: it gives you a protein that can go into a cell. If one did not get a car, but a part to the car, one would have to hope that everyone in their neighborhood not only won the protein lottery, but that everyone else in their neighborhood would not only win it as well, but that WHAT they won would be a complete set of parts for a car. There is a rule among scientists that each would defer to the findings of scientists in other fields that are not their own, and in which they have little to no expertise, with the expectation that those other scientists would defer to them in THEIR field of expertise. Evolutionary Biologists are the only ones to VIOLATE that rule when it comes to Statisticians.

@@GeraldOwens1954 You completely ignored the assumption of independent trials. That isn't valid and therefore these fantastical probabilities Creationists conjure up aren't valid.

@@RustyWalker There are two ways to conduct independent trials: doing them in parallel in different locations, and performing them repeatedly by the same team. I factored in the performance in parallel when I discussed the issue of proximity: you would take the volume of the pool of reagents and divide it by the required volume within which the amino acids would combine to get the number of “teams” trying to RANDOMLY assemble a viable protein. However, I also pointed out that a protein does not make a cell, which means that those assembled proteins also have to be in proximity, which means that the probably has to be reduced by the FACTORIAL of the number of teams DIVIDED by the factorial of the number of proteins required to make a cell. I addressed the issue of repeatability by the same “team” by pointing out that, once a protein is assembled, regardless of fitness, the amino acids used can no longer participate in future or parallel assembly attempts by other teams, because the process of protein assembly demands that it be done sequentially and in a fixed order BEFORE it folds into its final form. You can easily repeat card draws IF you put the cards back into the deck, but you can’t do that with amino acids already sequestered into a protein: you’d have to have a disassembly process that disassembles proteins to put their amino acid “cards” back into the primordial soup “deck”. And as I pointed out, such a process should equally disassemble “fit” proteins from “unfit” ones, since it would act blindly: fitness is a biological concept, not a chemical one. (For instance, the problem of coming up with a successful formula to make communism work that MIGHT exist, is limited by the fact that the supply of other people’s money is finite: once it is burned away in fruitless attempts, it can’t be recycled.) I did not “completely ignore” the assumption of independent trials: you just failed to see how I had already factored the two variants into my explanation. Of course, if there are other variations that are PHYSICALLY possible given the conditions of the PRIMORDIAL soup, I would be happy if you told me about them so I can address them. My bad: I assumed I was responding to someone who understood I was trying to analyze the full problem given the physical constraints, rather than proposing a “toy solution” alternative to a “Toy problem” and then pulling a “bait and switch” to propose that it solves the entire problem. Of course, if there is a paper out there done by an evolutionist who is also trained in probabilistic statistics that FULLY addresses the SAME problem (instead of a “toy problem”), I would be delighted if you posted the author(s), title, publication, and date…. :)

The idea that an olive tree has beauty is a fallacy. You find an olive tree to be beautiful. I agree with you. I find olive trees to be beautiful. But beauty is a human idea. It's not an objective characteristic. There are millions of people who see no beauty in olive trees. Or in sunsets. Or in mountain ranges. Or in the patterns of the whirling dances of galaxies. And their perspective is not flawed, nor incorrect. It's that _beauty_ is not inherent, it's only found within our own minds. And so the idea that "the beauty of the universe is proof that it was made by an intelligent creator" is false. Beauty is merely an artifact of human perception.

@@satchelsatchel You can't prove that anyone's mind exists.

@@satchelsatchel You can't prove that anything that you've said is true.

@@satchelsatchel The sheer arrogance of your statements elicits a deep sense of pity and contempt for your incredibly shallow reasoning skills.

They don't even address the origin of life, only what happens after it has been created. One of many things that appear to be against all odds.

Darwin never addressed the origin of life. So yes, in that sense the whole theory was also irrelevant to the question of how there could be life from non life 👍

​@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Will you idiots ever learn? Evolution is a fact. Get over it. Grow up and stop living your life according to bronze and iron age fiction, written by people who thought the Earth was flat and covered by a solid dome. Start with BioLogos referenced below. It's a Christian organisation. --------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Ayala, a renowned evolutionary biologist and recipient of the National Medal of Science and the 2010 Templeton Prize *(and a former Dominican priest),* recently stated the consensus of the field in these terms [Ayala2010, pg. 49-50]: *The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution* ***cannot deny it.*** *Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion* ***beyond reasonable doubt.*** *The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time.* In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: *anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution* ***has become much stronger and more comprehensive,*** coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as *genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology.* ... ***Because the evidence is so overwhelming,*** ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and ***no longer needed,*** the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate. *"How many scientists question evolution?* - sciencemeetsreligion.org" "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. ***The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.*** *I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."* ***"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true.*** If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." - Dr Francis Collins. Former head of the Human Genome Project and a Christian. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles: *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* *"Is Evolution a Theory in Crisis? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* Watch *"DNA Evidence that Humans and Chimpanzees Share a Common Ancestor : Endogenous Retroviruses - Stated Clearly"* (Look for Dr Francis Collins at the end of the video, who was the former head of The Human Genome Project and is a Christian) *"Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2"* Watch *"Ken Miller on Human Evolution" - Kurpalac* (Kenneth Miller is a theist) *"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"* *"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American"* *"Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions | New Scientist"* *"What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design | American Civil Liberties Union"* *"The intellectual vacuity of mathematical arguments against evolution - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Once again: misguided calls for a thorough revamping of evolutionary biology - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Confessions of a former creationist - Trees In Space"*

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life (abiogenesis). The theory of evolution is concerned only with what happened after the origin of life.

We can't not know something so often we settle for less to at least "know" what we know. What is nothing to everything, what is feeling to numbness, what is life to death, they are all abundance and lack of the same thing. So we numb feeling that distract from orderly logic. We contemplate Death to enhance our lives. We see entropy and life tug existence towards Nothing and everything, and we are that nothing and everything. We want to deny what is here with what is not here and I don't know if eternity is long enough to complete the job. So a shift should be made to an intrinsic and truthful retelling of life, but these are mere words in reference to much deeper momentums, we are the dice God hath tossed and we are still rolling with much momentum to curb if we should choose to curb or not, in that choice we overlap with the Divine.

That's because your research is limited to listening to creationists tell bald-faced lies or otherwise misrepresent it.

@ronaldflint681 Actually, as a Christian. I was not compelled either way. If God wanted to evolve life. Who am I to question his methods. My research was to confirm what science said was a theory. But I have been unable to prove that evolution actually works. No driving mechanism to explain the necessary new atgc sequences needed to bring about changes in the phenotype of a particular species. There is no support from the fossil records. Nothing! Can you prove that evolution is possible?

@@ronaldflint681 nope.. just no scientific credentials for evolution.

​@@ronaldflint681what have I said to make you think that?

@@michaelreichwein3970 You only said one thing. You can only be convinced of that by consuming exclusively creationist content instead of balancing it with content put out by real scientists who do their work within the field of evolutionary biology.

they teach spelling too :)

@@downshift4503 And grammar as well, considering it's a grammatical error and not a spelling error.

Proper students will question what they are told and taught. It's only a lie of the person lied to takes it as truth.

@@hanknorris5642 As you can imagine, when you tell something to a kid, he usually takes it as the truth because he doesn't know better. Teaching this BS to high school students (which are basically 15/16 year old kids), nobody will question it because they also don't know better. So the shame is really on the teachers and schools, not the kids.

Yeah like Earnst Haeckel’s embryonic recapitulation fraud! The guy spent six years in jail over this fraud a century ago, yet they still teach it in schools?!

Doug axe. "writing in the Journal of Molecular Biology, current Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Douglas Axe published seminal papers on the rarity of protein folds. Axe studied the beta-lactamase enzyme in E. coli and found that the likelihood of a chance sequence of 153 amino acids generating the stable, functional fold needed for the larger domain in that enzyme was as low as 1 in 1077." -Taken from Evolution News online.

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 evolution news is a creationist website that pushes intelligent design. It's not a reliable source and it's articles are all written by extremely biased proponents of ID. It is no way represents actual science.

You fucking idiots know they just dated the universe to being 26.7 billion years old now not 13.

i wrestled with this as well, but if it takes a mind to create/understand order, design, codes, etc, then it takes one to know one. if we found order and coding on a distant planet, we’d instantly assume alien life. it takes a mind to understand that a mind is required!

Only God could create universe. God cannot be limited by any of his creation, he must be outside of it, thus not going through it, its quite simple.

@jimmyrigdon1253 Well said. Agnosticism seems to be a rational position for me, atheism claims certainty which I can't agree with (and is anti-Scientific, as 'black swan' observations can and should change hypotheses at any time). I did leave agnosticism as I considered the question of evil. In additional to the evil of greedy and evil people I came to see evil that worked on timescales much greater than human lives (which meant humans could not benefit from it). One you recognize long term evil you can then also see its opposite, the good, which is necessary for life and order on the timescales of civilizations. Applying the Scientific Method I looked for which 'Good' hypothesis matched the data and made falsifiable predictions we can test and are not falsified, this leads inexorably to Christianity (matches the archeology, matches the science with a beginning of the Universe, and matches historical events, such as the Jews returning to power in Israel and about to construct their Third Temple and re-start their korban just as the Book of Revelations predicted 2 millennia ago !). Keep searching for the truth and you'll be blessed with a 'there is no spoon' moment where things will suddenly make sense (Christianity is true).

Spot on we are just guessing with our abilities we could all be wrong lol😅

That's like saying that we know that God is spirit, but we don't really know what spirit is. Of course we are limited to what we know and what we can know, and we know that information does not occur naturally.

You mean the creationist propaganda film which got laughed out of actual science venues?

The movie was not great. It is a sordid pack of lies from start to finish. Which lie was your favourite?

_What about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics?_ What about it? _Random natural forces cannot create anything complex,_ But iterative processes with random natural forces filtered by non-random selection can create unlimited complexity.

I think you are confusing evidence with proof. The probability argument is evidence that evolution is wrong. But it doesn't disprove it. But many of evolutionists theories have been constantly disproven. Such as the skeleton in the museums that show what our genetic "ancestors might have looked like. But the skull was angled improperly for a clear description and then examined thoroughly matches a baboon. The hip bone was duplicated then broken apart and reassembled to give it the proper angles to stand upright. The national geographic special the missing link has been criticized to the point where the scientists behind it are are making careful politically inspired statements backing off the claims they made. Ounce again these are all evidence. They don't prove anything

At the beginning, there were no precursors. The probability argument was always intended to address origin of life issues, not developmental issues. In mathematics, there is a process of proof called an Induction argument. Evolutionists have only proven half of such an argument: given a living being N, evolution proposes a random mechanism to produce a more fit being “N+1”. The induction argument requires that you prove that evolution address the case where there is no living being (N=0). Michael Behe’s argument addresses this level of the origin of life: proteins are the building blocks of machines, but there exist machines that could not “evolve” from simpler machines. For sure, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. But you haven’t proven that what you claim started the journey has any legs. \

Can you as whatever religion you follow, bless a non believer like me when I do not accept your blessings?

​@@stephenzaccardelli5863The fact that you're repelled or concerned by someone else's blessings--not even ones for sure directed at you, just the mere notion that they might be--suggests you know they're not just words, and you're afraid of what they might do to you. I advise you to reflect on why, friend. And if you say I'm wrong, well, then God bless you!

@@stephenzaccardelli5863 That question doesn't make sense to me bro, except if it was some attempt at edginess. From a mere logical perspective, why wouldn't I be able to ask God to bless someone, even if that person doesn't believe it?

@metaljacket8128 why is something maybe you should deliberate?

There is no god. But there is science.

You're right, they multiply over generations. Much wow, you've made a profound observation.

It does if genes encode for body plans. And they do.

@@ronaldflint681 I think you might have misread me ;)

@@RustyWalker Got it.

Argument from personal ignorance and incredulity. Fail.

@@sciencerules2825 Then stop doing that, come back and see us when you are less of a failure.

Um...some evolutionists do believe in major changes. I'm pretty sure that's the position of Stephen Jay Gould.

@@abigailedwards3843 Gould's punctuated equilibrium hypothesis doesn't claim evolution works in a single generation, or even over a few thousand years. It also doesn't say that species remain completely unchanged once they have evolved into a species, but rather that they remain 'relatively' stable within the fossil record, until environnmental pressures force them to adapt. The theory says it could happen over 10's thousands of years and across a few hundred generations rather than millions of years.

​@@aaronbeat1136 In any case, punctuated equilibrium theory talks about speciation in sudden 'spurts', 'bursts of activity'. That doesn't sound like small changes over a very long period of time. Sure, those spurts might not be 'over the course of a single generation', but they're still fast changes over a relatively 'short' period. Anyways, I know Gould believes the erroneous theory that those bursts of changes in a species would lead to changes *above* the species level. So, I'm not necessarily giving Gould as an example to disprove the theory of macro evolution (I have countless other arguments for that), I was merely challenging your argument that *all* competent evolutionary biologists *only* believed in slow changes over a very long period of time.

@@abigailedwards3843 "Relatively short" in Punc Eek means compared to *geologic time* and is still many thousands of years.

@@samburns3329 So? Time is still the 'hero of the plot'. Whether it's thousands OR millions of years. Macro evolution is a theory, not testable science. It is based on assumptions, and evolutionists hijack speciation as if it proves their point. It doesn't. 🤦