Darwin DEBUNKED: Using Modern Science (12 Minutes of Density!) 

The numbers show that even a few billion years is not enough.

Typical uneducated response. The difference in cell formation vs scrabble pieces is that cell formation is driven by natural processes that involve parts that work together, self replicate and assemble themselves. Scrabble pieces don't do that, nor do music notes or blended wood. And yes, we do observe it and very well understand it from a scientific point of view. Laboratory experiments have created the building blocks of life using representative conditions of early earth.

Similar to the idea that a slow moving tornado going through a Ferrari wrecking yard will never produce a functioning Ferrari. But they still insist that it's possible.

@@nudsh Your response raises the question: where did the natural processes come from? Where did the parts that work together come from? Where did self replication come from? Have laboratory conditions created natural processes from building blocks? Not a single laboratory experiment I'm aware of has been able to produce the leap from building blocks of life to life. Which is the point the comment you're condescending to is making.

​@nudsh and you miss the point entirely. Evolutionists posit that given enough time for the iterations of chemical mixing to take place, you get what we see today. From non living things to living things that organize complex structures to generate or aquire energy, expend it to run whatever process it needs, and then replicate copies. The basic observation that things with more energy and complexity tend to move to lower complexity and lower energy states should give a clue to the likelihood that even the most basic of organism spontaneously came into existence long ago. Even making a protein from molecules requires a ridiculously complex set of instructions. But it just happened, one day, billions of years ago? Ok.

Same here I attempted to become atheist under the guise of “searching for options” because I thought myself to be so smart. Then I found out that the politicians are all corrupt “devil worshippers”

Yes, I too studied the ratcheting of striated muscle tissue, and it is utterly fantastic how the proteins actin and myosin interact with ATP.

Why not? @@cthulhucrews6602

@@cthulhucrews6602 H.P. Lovecraft’s Deities are real.

🙄

Since you were at school there has been a lot of changes to biology

link to the debate please

So Swamidass was wrong twice.

The issue is that Darwin is not synonymous of Evolutionary Biology. Biology has "evolved" from those ideas a bit. Only theist keep bringing Darwin as a strawman.

​@@MarkRichardson-wu6oq OK, let me present a better argument assuming your assertion is correct (it's not but I'll run with it). Dr. James Tour is currently in the middle of a 60 day challenge issued to the top Origin of Life chemists in the world to hypothetically or otherwise, describe the steps involved in the formation of the basic building blocks of life such as polysaccharides, polypeptides, and the cell. What makes this challenge incredibly hard is that (some of challenges) given the half-life of the polypeptides, polysaccharides is on a scale of 4 HOURS, there need to be sufficient quantities, sufficiently close by, with the right ambient conditions, to then take those compounds to form a cell through a mechanism that no one knows. If I could bet, I'd bet Dr Tour will be hearing crickets for the 60 days. Now Dr Tour is approaching this from the bottom up and now we have the top down claim that the cell is irreducibly complex. I'm waiting for someone who can give us ANY solution to this situation that doesn't involve God. Edit: its in these moments that scientism as a religious belief system reveals itself.

It seems that this dr Joshua Swamidass accept evolution as far as I heard him.

Maybe you should pay more attention in class.

Biology also lead me to God.

@@timhallas4275 the more science is advanced the less the religion of evolution can afford to pay attention to science.

@@denvan3143 Look how ridiculous and uninformed your post is. Haha. Science is about creating a PRODUCT we can use, from knowledge. Can you think of ONE single thing we use in science that resulted from creationist ideology?

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 uh huh... the belief that some original "simple" single-celled life form, however it got there, evolved into every giraffe, brontosaurus, elephant, whale and of course you, through random mutations and the blind elimination of "weaker" forms is an ideology lacking physical evidence not only in the rocks, but in explanatory requirements of the necessary new info to build structures of new forms. Calling it science as if that helps doesn't mean much. It's getting ruined all the more moving forward, like it or not

John 3:12 I used this vers a lot before the 2016 election with my floridian brothers, but they are still in lalaland🥴🤪🤦😢 Hugs and prayers from germany 🙏 😇 🤗 🥰

Aren't all things possible through God? So couldn't God will your understanding assuming he wanted to?

@@RangeMaster1050 Assuming He wanted to. He wants us to have freedom to decide matters on our own; it's the way He is, He doesn't want automatons.

@@RangeMaster1050 God has given us free choice, and that's the reason some people suffer because of the choices some people make. God wants us to love Him, not to be robots

Citing the bible to prove the power of the god of the bible is as stupid as citing "Lord of the Rings to prove the supreme power of Gandalf. The bible can't even make its mind up when the principal boy in its fantasy was supposedly born. Matthew's myth claims that Jesus was a "young child" before the death of Herod in 4BC, while Luke's legend asserts that the same sprog was still preborn more than ten years later when Herod's successor Archelaus had been deposed by Augustus Caesar and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was carrying out the census of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, but *NOT* Galilee because Archelaus had never been king of Galilee

Dawkins research, of which I'd bet my house you've not read a solitary syllable, was not on the evolution of the eye. If you are interested read Nilsson and Pelger. I doubt you're the slightest bit interested. The eye has evolved multiple times independently- what do you mean by "the eye".....I suspect: nothing. Behe has yet to actually exhibit a single "irreducibly complex" structure. His poster child- the bacterial flagellum- wont do it. He called for an experiment to be done where the genes for the flagellum would be knocked out to show that it would not re-evolve. His ignorance of the literature is such that he didn't know that the experiment had already been done, written up, submitted for review and published. It re-evolved in 96 hours. I don't suppose opening a damn book on biology has ever occurred to you?

And religion is the biggest fairytale of them all !

ID debunks itself It has zero explanatory power and can make zero testable predictions It’s creationism in a cheap lab coat

Well, you're just wrong. The concept of "irreducible complexity" (IC) has been hilariously debunked, dozens or hundreds of times over with extremely specific examples. The fact that Michael Behe himself was forced to admit, under oath, that IC was no more scientific than astrology sure didn't help. Lol

Also, what is it with you people and being embarrassingly infatuated with debunked creationist memes? The evolution of the eye is unbelievably well-documented. If someone like you were ever even the tiniest bit interested in intellectual honesty, you could follow the evolution of the eye in detail. You could follow it from the earliest organisms utilizing photosensitive cells to face the sun for energy, to the incremental co-evolution of eyes, muscles, skulls, the endocrine system, brains, and everything else necessary for sight, over billions of years. Weird that you don't know that. It's also weird that you're either ignorant of or incredibly dishonest about modern evolutionary biologists like Dawkins not only touching but describing that evolutionary process step-by-step.

good to see a scientist displaying humility for a change. The body and how it functions is still a total mystery in many ways.

@@Mike-mm4mx i saw a few research studies I am trained in psychology, and thanks to my university i had to take a climate science course so also in eutrophication, i saw some research that said globally about 30 percent of scientists are atheist, ad i worked for DOW for a number of years which i worked with a number of scientists, and we had to have every denomination and religion avialiable in that town for the Scientists, since they where from all over, plus of course we had what i like to refer to as church for atheists the Unitarians, but we had them all. however in that same study only scientists who work for university are over 90 percent atheist.

@@Mike-mm4mx Scientists are indeed humble, but that does not mean that they’re not familiar with evolution and most of our body’s functions.

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Evolutionism is just atheism in a lab coat.

The James Webb telescope has counted over 700 billion galaxies and they're the ones we can see, maybe the universe is infinite and these religious humans know that in a infinite universe over maybe "an infinite time" no cell could ever happen so it must be a magic man in the sky, where did that come from?

and yet they call us believers outdated

They lost😂.

You said it

No. Darwin is the "father of evolution" only to religious people. He just realized the basics and is in no means an authority. Theists just like to poke holes where it´s the easiest. Would be totally different convo if they´d go against modern science.

They love their sin and don’t want to face the fact that God is real and the Bible might actually be true

You, sir are a witless fool.

Maybe you should actually go and learn about languages then. Rather than deciding something you remember from the Bible must explain everything.

@@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025 That is a complex verse that only someone who has knowledge of scripture knows, and understands.

And the word was with God, and the word was God 🙏☦️

@@noself7889 I have a degree in history and focused on comparative religion. I've read the Bible twice, once as a believer and once when I wasn't. I've taken multiple classes on Biblical interpretation and criticism, exegesis and hermeneutics, the Bible as literature, studied rabbinical interpretations of the Septuagint, Biblical criticism, biblical history and historicity, ancient near east (ANE) history and tribal history and history of slavery, etc. etc. Don't talk to me about how you *sniff* simply understand the verse in a more sophisticated way, because of how complex it is, due to your hyper-advanced knowledge of scripture. I'm pretty confident that I'm as knowledgable about scripture as you are, Nose. Lol At least, homie.

@@noself7889 Lol Stop. IDK if my last comment was removed or something, but I would be a lot of money that my knowledge and understanding of scripture and the Bible and its history and historicity and interpretations, etc. is equal to yours, and then some. If you think the doofy hermeneutics about "the Word" in Genesis is a complex and sophisticated understanding of scripture... you really don't have all that much knowledge of or informed insight into scripture, homes. That's like Sunday school apologetics.

Feeling the need to "title" yourself is where you made your first mistake.....

Which god though. That's a problem you are still making.

The cells that make you up are your Gods.

@@les_crow Silly loaded question. If there is a creator, then there is just one. The same one for all creation.

Just because we have a creator, doesn't mean it(he/she) is good or intentional. For all we know creating life was done as a last resort from a dying species or experiments on one of the billions of potential earth like planets.

Who are these "same people" who say this?

Michaelangelo’s David and other works.❤

@@DRayL_ it's an analogy, dude

evolution is not a random process. its something a creationist wants you to believe evolution tells us. its a lie

Did god rise by random chance?

Irreducible complexity isn’t a thing, there is clear evidence of incremental changes creating complex function. Don’t get sucked in by this utter nonsense.

No, they are NOT honest questions, and they are NOT searching for answers, they're manipulating data to fit an answer that they've already decided upon.

What worries me with religious people is they seem to think _"If Darwin was wrong then I must be right"_

@@TonyEnglandUK Why would that worry you? Do you realize how that sounds? If people that have a different set of beliefs 'worry you', it begs the question, what would you, ultimately, want to do to those people that ;'worry you'? How about just getting on with your own life and letting other people do what they want.

@@SaintKimbo LOL. Please tell me you didn't type that seriously? It was painfully petty. _"What worries me about..."_ is just a saying, man - it doesn't mean I'm *_literally_* worried about it lol.

JOSHUA THIS IS REMARKABLE!!!

@Joshua2707, I was watching the evolution/creation debate online about 10 years ago, when the topic of the flagellum surfaced. There was even a courtroom trial, "the dover trial" I believe, which was about teaching evolution and not intelligent design in schools. Anyway two main witnesses were Behe and Miller. Keneth Miller was presenting against ID, suggesting that the mousetrap could have had a different use with parts missing, eg as a tie clip ! The evolutionists won the day, I believe Behe's legal team were lacking,they should really have laughed Miller out of court. It could also be said that the judge clearly had his bias, his closing speech was a replica of some evolutionists text, taken directly from a previous magazine article.

Doesn't change the fact that the arguments being made are just the watchmaker fallacy and a god of the gaps fallacy.

“Just knowing” = human tendency to anthropomorphise everything. Your intuition is not a reliable indicator of truth.

@@danieladeyinka3829 no it isn't he's just looking at science and saying, LOOK, GAWD DONE DID IT! GOLLY GEE GOSH UUHHU AINT THAT JUST THE GREATESTS THING EVER!?! He's retarded

Peace....

Are you in remission now? Is everything going ok? God bless you.

Not going to say it...

Literally became religious because of brain damage.

@@cowsareperfectcowlover6420 he literally said he planned on coming to god when he was older

Why? Behe hasn't managed to identify a singe irreducibly complex structure in biology. He was calling for an experiment to be done where the genes for the flagellum were knocked out- to show that it wouldn't evolve......His ignorance of the literature is such that he wasn't aware the experiment had already been done and the results published in "Science"...only the most prestigious top tier journal in all of academia. The population of the bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens underwent two identified mutations in the nitrogen uptake genes and they regained flagella in 4 DAYS. What a tool.....

Some years ago I first heard of Michael Behe when I came across his book, Darwin’s Black Box in which he explains the concept of irreducible complexity. Well worth the read!

@@ethanlamoureux5306 except that it’s utter nonsense. There is not a single identified irreducibly complex structure yet identified in biology. Certainly not the flagellum- which was observed to re-evolve in FOUR DAYS.

Also worth watching "Judgement Day: intelligent design on trial" - specifically the part where Behe confirms - under oath - that his work on intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology.

My profile picture in my other account is a laminin protein lol, if someone else is reading this and you havent seen what laminin looks like then please go do it

I just checked it out. The shape gave me goosebumps! The lamb of God that was slain from the foundations of the Earth. Jesus Christ our Lord 🙏🏽

Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon that causes people to see patterns in a random stimulus. This often leads to people assigning human characteristics to objects.

@@clew5687there goes the word again “random” boy atheists sure do love that one huh? It really takes the responsibility out of believing the truth don’t it

You could just as readily say it looks like Excalibur as it looks like a crucifix, thereby proving the existence of Merlin.

GOD ALMIGHTY IS INTELLIGENCE so be not surprised to understand HIM, while truly looking for answers.

The problem is that none of them are biologist and it seems that they resist understanding the basics of biology. I wonder why.

@@raulhernannavarro1903 ... what is a "biologist"? ... and more importantly for a men with a hammer everything becomes a nail... and finally using LOGOS was never a strength of INDOCTRINATED HUMAN MINDS ... to be continued!

Because they aren't.

@@raulhernannavarro1903 , can you give a specific example, I ‘m trying to understand your point.

Big fan of dishonest science denial? Cool, sweet find then.

Why not listen to working scientists rather than lying religious activists?

Precisely. A necessary component for any evolution to occur is a self-replicating system. Self-replication is one heck of a complex system. If you thought the molecular motors were complicated, you haven't seen a cell's self-replication system yet! If an individual protein were to have this property of self-replication and mutation, it itself would count as being alive, however no such standalone living protein has been demonstrated to exist. It takes a whole lot more than that to make a working system.

Mutations in individual cells are irrelevant to the evolution of species unless they happen to be egg or sperm cells. If a mutation happens in one of those, then *every* cell in the organism that grows will have the mutation in it, so all those cells are different to the original. If the mutation makes the cells function worse than the original, then the mutant organism is more likely to die than the original is; if the mutation makes the cells function better than the original, then the mutant organism is more likely to live.

@@mattermat1925 i think I understand what your saying. But I’m not sure where you stand on intelligence design. I’m on the side of intelligence design. My statement was more about how they never account for the million on years for evaluation. To me they are saying from the very start of life whichever science thinks it is RNA or virus cells, my point is things have life spans. And it means that evolution had to get every change correct, or as I pointed out dead things don’t pass on information and the earth’s atmosphere had to always be safe for this life to progress. I find it highly unlikely we started life like that. And cellular science is proving intelligent design is correct. IMHO.

​@@mattermat1925I wouldn't say irrelevant to the theory. The issue I have is that millions of years of evolutionary "animal" time can be viewed in a test tube in a lab in a matter of days - the whole timeline of mammalian evolution can be seen in a lab. Yet we have not seen microorganism change types. Does not bode well for evolution.

@@JohnBoysGold What matters most in evolution is which organisms survive and reproduce and which don't. The only cells this applies to are single-celled organisms like bacteria or yeasts - and even then a generation is measured in minutes or hours, so you can't 'do' enough evolution in a test tube in a few days to expect to see much change. An individual cell in an animal like a rabbit is irrelevant to the overall lifespan and success of that rabbit in reproducing. You may have to wait years for any new advantage from a mutation to pay off in greater numbers of offspring compared to the unmutated rabbits.

Lol When you find a video like that, let me know. It's certainly not this one. These creationist grifters are literally the opposite of honest and wise. They knowingly lie for a living and remain purposefully ignorant of so, so many answers we already have.

@@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025 Not sure they knowingly lie. I'll concede that they are honestly wrong.

@@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025 ok Einstein prove exactly where and how you think they were lying. And show us the proof that your alternative scientific opinions are true.

@@donaldclifford5763 Well, I'll go ahead and concede that for you, because there are endless, ENDLESS examples of all of these people making claims about something, being shown clear evidence to the contrary, and then lying about it. Or claiming that specific research doesn't exist, being shown studies on that specific research, and then lying about it. Even if that weren't the case, and it is, you honestly think that these people whose entire careers are based around denying modern science have somehow just never encountered what any of the modern science says?? Of course they're lying. It's their job.

@@matthewpaul1111 Hahahaha Where to begin. Let's see, there's Meyer lying about how information theorists use the term "specified complexity." And when asked who these theorists, plural, are beyond creationist William Dembski, he has no answer. But then keeps lying about how multiple scientists use the term "specified complexity." There's him lying about how evolution is random, despite being told hundreds of times over that a natural SELECTION process is not random, and admitting this in other places, before lying about it again. He lies about the "Artifact Hypothesis" regarding the fossil record, while ignoring the obvious answers given to him many times over. He keeps demanding transitional fossils in the fossil record, and then people provide him with THOUSANDS of examples, and he ignores them. He doesn't refute them or argue against them, he ignores them and keeps telling the lie, never acknowledging the endless evidence he's been offered. He hilariously lied about how the first animals abruptly showed up during the Cambrian explosion, which is just unbelievably dishonest. Do you want me to keep going, Einstein? The guy's job is literally lying for creationists who will NEVER do the super easy checking up by just googling his lies.

I think John 20:28-29 gives us some insight Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. imo the history of earth is faith based and requires belief as stated in this passage. Evolution looks like satans alternative to the creation story?? This being a belief and completely unverifiable. God is good

Yea....you didn't dig much. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over subsequent generations. The pepper moth you learned about in 9th grade is an example of this. Or we can look at the speciation event of genetically isolated mosquitoes in the London subway.

@@johnferguson8794 Your first mistake is making assumptions about the education of people you don't know.... Evolution teaches that all life evolved from a common source....(AKA abiogensis).For that to be a fact, then that first life must have diverged from one Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, to another Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. In order for all forms of life to have come from just one common ancestor would require that this one source of life diverge, crossing all classification lines. Even the big ones. We have observed and recorded life adapting to changing environmental conditions producing slight variations on the Species level. Some even refusing to or incapable of interbreeding again. But never has anybody ever recorded a change at the Family or Genus level. To say that it is a fact and that this has actually happened is disingenuous...It is nothing but a speculation.... an unknown....not an observable scientific fact. It is an assumption required to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor and nothing more. It is clear that there are vast evolutionary variations within Family or Genus (AKA like...Canines, Felines, Bovines, Malacostraca, Cephalopods... ) and there is ample evidences for this very limited part of the evolutionary theory. But the only thing connecting these vastly different groups to each other is the assumptions made ..... There is no observed descendancy between these groups, no DNA to test in the case of extinct examples, just a bias assumption required to support their narrative that all life diverged from a common ancestor. The branches of the "Tree Of Life" and the names that have been given presented by academia indicating the ancestors of one organism transforming into another are unseen speculations invented by man to help organize and classify individual life forms and nothing more. The transitions presented within the "Tree Of Life" charts are speculations, not observed facts. POINTING TO THE REMAINS OF AN ORGANISM BURIED UNDER LAYERS OF SEDIMENTARY STRATA AND PROCLAIMING THAT IT IS THE PROGENY OF ANOTHER DIFFERENT ORGANISM BERRIED FARTHER DOWN IN ANOTHER LAYER OF STRATA IS CALLED AN ASSUMPTION. NOT A FACT. One cannot use the assumption that one organism is the descendant of another organism as evidence to support that very assumption. This is called a fallacy ( Circular reasoning ). AKA..... While on an excavation you find the fossilized remains of animal "A" in layer "a".....Then farther down in the strata you find the fossilized remains of another animal, Animal "E" in layer "e". Both the fossilized remains and the layers are demonstrable facts, they can be proven and observed. The relation (heredity) of animal "A" to animal "E" on the other hand is a speculation, not a demonstrable fact. It is taken on faith despite the fact that often animal "A " and "E" are clearly not of the same species or even family...... Then this "Speculation" of heredity is used as the very basis of an entire theoretical construct called Evolution. God haters eat this S##T up like candy. Never noticing or even questioning the obvious circular reasoning fallacy. Let me make this perfectly clear. "IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ONE TO REFUTE A POSITION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO BE TRUE TO BEGIN WITH." I Have never encountered anyone with more faith in the unseen then an atheist/evolutionist .

@@johnferguson8794 Creationist don't have any issue with the peppered moth changing from light coloured to dark or vice versa if required. Those examples are observable. It is still a moth. Where creationist differ is the common ancestor of the moth [I read some 250 mill years ago there was a common ancester] This is unverifiable. Maybe true, but requires you to believe what the scientist say. That takes faith, blind faith. You can't verify any of the scientist work they did. Same with the genetically isolated mosquitoes in the London subway, it is still a mosquito. Speciation however did occur. Perfectly accepted with in the creationist pov The question is do you think it [mosquito and moth] will continue to genetically mutate and become something other than a recognizable mosquito or moth over millions of years. Creationist simply believe there is a ceiling as to how far an animal can change within its kind. So the mosquito and the moth will still be a mosquito and a moth respectively doing what they normally do today with very little change.. Problem is no-one can verify that this will or will not happen. it is all belief.

Right, but you've told us nothing. How does allele frequency change produce enough reproductive advantage quickly enough to avoid its obliteration and create enough impetus to dominate a population to the degree that it will outlast any ecological culling (the underlying mechanism of 'natural' selection)? @@johnferguson8794

Except that he is obviously Christian, and biased in his supposed science. I mean, if you believe the Bible, the lord created the heavens, the earth and every living thing, and then rested on the 7th day. In other words you will believe anything.

​@@markharris2912 Some people will even insist that everything sprang from nothing, for no reason and under no guiding influence - and then actually trust that the conclusions of their own brain are reliable! Think that through!

@@markharris2912 If you believe life created itself form non-life matter and emerged from a primordial soup, you will believe anything.

No, it's not.

DNA is turing complete, isn't it?

That's no reasoning for asserting fairytale is the answer. Our ancestors used fire, eventually they melted metal and glass.

Whatever. Blinkers intact.@@roscius6204

Even if there is some truths to certain theories of evolution in the sense an animal has offspring of their kind and maybe their eye colors change over time etc, but even then the mitochondia in the cell is clearly alone just such a jaw droppingly insane thing to me its obvious there is intentional intellectual intent with its designits been unchanged from thr trex to the human basically. If evolution has true degrees even the. They have had little or no effect on the mitochondria which to me is a sign it had to be made a specific way that couldnt he changed on purpose

It is not surprising when they are all agreeing with each other and patting themselves on the back.

@cynic150 In this video, yes. But in other videos, there are some great respectful conversations between atheists and Christians.

They are respectful toward each other because they uniformly reject actual current science, and they're all anti-evolution theists. Please.

@@cynic150this comment section is very full of "I am religious and very smart" vibes. While I'm open to discussion and other train of thoughts this comment section isn't really thinking just jumping into something that validates their feelings.

And that is the only thing that these videos do is Reinforce belief. There are no facts, evidence or truth in this discussion. Just talking points to make Christians blindly believe more.

Riiight, how about all of the people who have noticed something about the best places to live on Earth? They noticed that the most successful, the most peaceful, the places with the least crime and best education, where people are happiest and healthiest - basically, the places with the best quality of life on Earth - they are also the least religious places on the planet? How would you tell the people in all of those places that they should... brought into the fold? So they can be like the places with the most religion and the most crime, and the least education, and the most murder, and the worst health care, etc.?

Lol, no it isn't. They are not great scientific minds at all. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked.

Punctuated equilibrium creates a lot more difficulties for the theory of evolution than natural selection does. For these bursts of beneficial, simultaneous changes to occur, the level of "irreducible complexity" required would increase exponentially. Already, as these guys are discussing, if irreducible complexity renders natural selection impossible, then punctuated equilibrium is just silliness. Only works in Marvel's X-Men.

Quick Google search and Origin of species was published 23 years before Darwin died, so that story is incorrect. Also his daughter was quoted as saying "my father never recanted any of his scientific views", which would make no sense with that story. As a Christian, I agree with the rest of your comment.

This is incorrect. First Darwin rushed his book into publication fearing that AR Wallace would publish a similar theory first. Darwin wrote multiple editions of his book with edits based on feedback from the scientific world. Darwin also wrote "Descent of Man" with allusions to his more famous book. Darwin was enormously famous in his lifetime for his book, although not always in a good way.

BS though

Not exactly, if he didn't mean to publish his book, then scientists at the time wouldn't have even dared look into his finding due to the fact that they were also religious. Eventually he set out to find what was proven years later, and what everyone else had already suspected: natural selection, the process by which where individuals of a species have the beneficial genes to pass onto the next generation, specialising the previously existing forefathers, and eventually having individuals of their own with different specialised traits. Of course, other people did suspect that it happened based on sight alone. What we are talking about here is that which is obvious at first glance and comparing it to scriptures of fairytales which haven't been proven true. This obviously should remind you of the thunder, where the was a point in time where people used to believe that it came from the command of the gods, especially in nordic mythology. Now we know how it happens, and it has nothing to do with the gods. Likewise people also used to believe that the earth was flat until basic mathematics were done and eventually when we were able to go to space ourselves. We have enough empirical data to prove that Adam and eve were not real people, first of all that human like apes would've existed with them but the bible makes no mention of that, the other being the regulations against incest, and all the dating methods that we have. It is your fairytale against someone else's fairytale, all making the same or similar unverified claims and not backing them up with empirical evidence. Where 1 group of people eventually asked themselves, "we're killing other people in the name of our gods, but the gods never bring themselves in our name?" And stopped thinking that a god commanded the thunder to happen, for the tides to become violent, for it to rain, and for any natural disaster imaginable. Which depiction of the antichrist is it by the way?

@@tykemorris I've heard the same thing. Darwin sat on his manuscript for years and only published when he realized he was about to be scooped by Wallace.

You won’t learn anything listening to these people.

@@BhukyaAnil-781 I can digest it just fine. If you know anything about these topics, though, unlike you apparently, it’s just pathetic.

Evolution does not work "by chance"

You are so right I have been watching the debates for at least 30 years and see the same. Just as the Pharisees - the students of the law - WOULD NOT (refused) believe in Jesus, these atheists PURPOSE not to see the evidence.

@@bobdalton2062 it’s heartbreaking you know, this isn’t me just ripping them, here is LIFE….here is LOVE, redemption, EVERYTHING we ever could want and life eternal at our finger tips and these people push away GOD’s hand, choose death like a drug addict killing themselves inch by inch and no amount of reason can help them see the light. It’s heart breaking, we need to continue to shine the light, to be the salt and pray for the lost because tomorrow is never promised.

Even our Yahuah ( Hebrew name of our Creator) says He will harden hearts and let them believe their nonsense. (Paraphrasing). Then Yahusha ( Our Savior) said to His disciples, if folks don't listen, then leave and brush off the dirt from your sandals. (Paraphrasing again). So the point is, even though we try to tell people about our Elohim and His Son, they may just have hardened heart. Sad, but this is our Father's plan.

Ever wonder why behee has to post in creation journals while the rest of the scientific community doesn't even think about him? It's your comment, right there. Forcing data to fit your pre-made conclusion is the exact opposite of science.

You are right, there is nothing new in this video. It is the same old rubbish. None of these men can prove anything, it is all inference and what they want to believe.

Amazing! Keep up the good work! We need more ambassadors of truth.

Then you obviously don't know enough about modern advanced biology. And do you really know what the scientific meaning of the term "theory" is?

@@Nils-gi5bv yeah what is your point

@@andyshinskate As a science teacher you should rather concentrate on biology and leave theological interpretations to your religious colleagues, if religious education is allowed at schools in your country. Besides, you made the term "theory" sound as if you were using it in a colloquial (i.e. degrading) sense. At least that was my impression.

@@Nils-gi5bv so I can teach theory of evolution but can't theory of intelligent design?

thats just something youre going to have to deal with

? The life time of the LTEE is 50 years and aids has existed in humans for 100....that's a human lifespan. Both of which refute irreducible complexity.

That's why they rigged the meassurment tools to come up with millions and billions of years.

Are you referring to the same lord that said sprinkling bird's blood will cleanse your house? The same lord that said slugs melt when they walk? Yeah, the "Lord's Science" would make a great fairy tale. Oh, wait...it already did.

HIV, SARS-CoV2, influenza, smallpox, etc. are all complex, microscopic entities. What's this tell you about your Lord?

Google search then select images. For example bacteria flagellum. (see my post I made)

thank god 🤭

I would love to make that happen! We’ll see what’s possible.. baby steps 🙏

How does one argue with 2+2=4? It wouldn't be an argument. It would be what it has always been; a denial of reality and open hate for the fact that there is a God......to Whom we will all give an account.

That's a great idea! I suggest to also involve people who are expert on machine/deep learning. I know it may sound unrelated, but it actually is. It shows you a glimpse of the ability of a stochastic process with very simple basic "rules" results in extremely complex behaviors. And that's with a "simulation" in a computer that has basically tiny power compared to actually running it all in parallel using the atoms of the world as the "computer". The complexity of a biological system is by no means any "proof of god" -both because this "gap" is just the lack of understanding of people of what a long stochastic process can achieve, and also because it's a very bad "solution" to say that a complex system can't emerge and therefore a more complex system created it, because now your duty is to explain how an even more complex system ("god") emerged. I think that religion can always say that god created the universe, and since the physics rules, and the presence of atoms is required, it doesn't matter for religion if life evolved or not. There are aspects that will always be relevant for religion - soul, life meaning, creation of the universe to name a few.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t have to have a discussion with the person who failed at a math question to know when you have the right answer.

Sadly you only have to look at the responses from the OOL scientists to James Tour to see it is very difficult for them to admit they have nothing to show for their years of effort. How much more for evolutionists to admit macro evolution is childish nonsense.

You do realize that evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, although knowledge about it would of course be a welcome addition.

The original life on earth had no DNA or RNA as it's only needed for complex structures

@@engineergaming3830 So bacteria or even primitive viruses are already complex for you?

Like what?

@@johnferguson8794 The fossil record directly contradicts Darwinism, for one. The sudden appearance of complex life (Cambrian Explosion), no transitional organismal forms, stasis. Not to mention the whole origin of life problem itself.

@@chrispark2698 you know we've found life prior to the Cambrian period right? And a simple Google search would fix you on transitional species. Abiogenesis isn't evolution in any way shape or form. But you can always dig into the research.

@@johnferguson8794 "you know we've found life prior to the Cambrian period right?" I do know that - I didn't say the first fossils appear in the Cambrian Explosion. I said there was a sudden massive explosion of complex life at the Cambrian - with no evidence of any antecedent forms. Going off memory, I believe there have been only 4 phyla found pre-Cambrian, and over 20 phyla at the Cambrian, with no transitions found between them. This directly contradicts Darwinism. But how do you explain that on Darwinism? "a simple Google search would fix you on transitional species." There are no undisputed transitional species. Pretty much every fossilized organism that may have been *theorized* to be a transitional form has been highly disputed, most outright proven wrong. Please, you are clearly more informed than I am - can you name any undisputed transitional fossil forms? You ignored stasis. "Abiogenesis isn't evolution in any way shape or form." Evolution doesn't happen without abiogenesis. If life can't begin, it can't evolve. The chemistry needed to start life can't happen by natural cause; it needs intelligence to guide it.

Evolution is a fact and the vast majority of scientists don't even think it's worth debating. You just watched a YT video with people that represent like 0.00000000001% of scientists and you're surprised that scientists are "taking it seriously?" Evolution is a solid fact that is not disputed by anyone except religious people who have alterior motives and bias. Do yourself a favor and go read papers by Christian scientists who love Jesus and believe in evolution, they'll set you straight. What is surprising is that you'll believe this idea that it's got so many holes that it's unbelieveable, but you don't even know anything about it other than what some religious leaders have told you. Aren't you curious to learn for yourself? Why not read and study and be able to steelman evolution before arguing against it? If you haven't even read The Selfish Gene then you're like a guy who was raised by Hindus and never once heard the name of Jesus saying, "Jesus can't exist, there's too many holes in the theory." I mean, the Hindu might be right, but he wouldn't be arguing from a position of critical thinking. Just like you're doing with evolution. You don't believe in something you don't even have the slightest clue about.

It’s not entirely random though. It’s random mutations with entirely non-random selection. We have computer algorithms that find solutions to difficult problems in exactly the same way and they work beautifully.

And the computer came from where? There was at least one smart person writing a program.

@cthulhucrews6602 How did we jump to “magical”? Can we stick with programmer?

@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom He just mentioned computer algorithms to illustrate a similar process to ask where the computer came from is a non sequitur.

@@Domesticated_Apewhere does the “selection” come from? How does it know what to select and what not to? Sounds random to me…. Not satisfied with this sorry….

Trekbeat - Exactly! I see this constantly in all the science and nature documentaries. Do they even hear themselves when they make statements that credit nature with figuring out the solutions to dilemmas animals and plants were faced with? Or, even credit the creatures themselves with coming up with ingenious modifications of themselves to help themselves survive better and propagate themselves more successfully. At which point I think, "Gee! Isn't Nature so smart!"

Science really not a tool for validating history since it’s not replicable, but I’m convinced that evolution is statistically impossible to account for life origins and speciation

Because you're too busy to look at the fossil record?@@goyablackolivesmatter179

​@@goyablackolivesmatter179 In a purely mathematical study, random unguided evolution is impossible. The DNA double helix contains 3 billion base pairs (letters). The British Encyclopedia contains 277,2 million letters i.e. only 11% of the human DNA base pairs. In a random construction of DNA, accumulating mistakes quickly degrade the structural and thermodynamic stability of protein folds. The stable tertiary structure of DNA is lost long before the trial and error could generate a functioning novel protein fold. The whole job must be done quickly which in practice means "No mistakes allowed". Time is the enemy of random process as every error in the process creates new errors. No more than 3-15 trials and errors are enough to crumble the stability of DNA section, while different possibilities for error are counted in millions. After each failure the random process must start again - from beginning! - in an everlasting vicious circle. Billions of years don't help since the Almighty Happenstance isn't allowed to build mistakes on any successful partial structure. You make a mistake and you start the WHOLE process from beginning. Earlier successes don't mean anything. What is even more crushing to the idea of random DNA evolution is the fact, that even if a random DNA indeed did appear against mathematical possibility, it could not be functional. Why? Because somebody must give DNA the needed structure in advance. DNA has no brains to do the planning or set the goal to itself. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the Almighty Happenstance doesn't have brains either.

That's a terrible argument from ignorance. All you're doing is fulfilling the laws of confirmation bias, massaging available data until you can mould it into the shape you need it to be. _"Someone or something wrote the 'Code'"_ you say? Prove that claim with evidence. Clear, direct evidence.

that you were another deluded theist?

Probably nothing since the Lennox is a goofball with no knowledge of biology whatsoever

They probably think they were correct, although it is called evolution not darwinism and the alternative is a magic invisible pixie who created everything, in the wrong order, in 6 days.

Actually, it's not science that's failing to see evidence, it's scientists that are failing to see evidence. Science itself points to God. The religion of atheism closes people's eyes and prevents sight.

Unfortunately, you're being conned by these "philosophers" who claim to understand real science. They don't bother to consult reputable scientists or to keep up with the current level of knowledge and understanding. They rely on tired tropes rather than face current science.

Perfectly phrased and you are 100% correct,

Science is what made it possible to understand that complexity, you're debunking yourself.

@@mickadams1905 you’re not very intelligent are you?

Everything in Darwin's theory is inexplicable, everything!

You’re witnessing the randomness of 14.5 billion years. Not one night in a lab.

@@Tennethums1 yeah problem is that doesn’t work statistically. You assume the large numbers account for the improbable outcome but, in fact, it would take closer to hundreds of billions of years or even trillions to achieve even the smallest level of simple functioning proteins given the vast aray of protein sequences required to form the chain and to fold it appropriately. Funny enough, the folding is the rate limiting step as opposed to the simple building blocks

Well, self-replicating molecules and structures would have, by definition, been selected for, huh. Since they are the ones that would propagate. This is seriously your argument? "this stuff perplexes me, therefore science doesn't stand up and a god must have done it all." Have you ever heard of the "argument from incredulity logical fallacy? And the fact that you even refer to the "Darwinian model" demonstrates that you're not a person in a position to be determining whether there are unresolvable "issues" with evolution or not. Because evolution isn't "the Darwinian model." As brilliant as Darwin was and as right as he was about so many things, including the basics of evolution... he published like 170ish years ago, homey. Our understanding of evolution has advanced a bit since then.

@@cristovieneya8997 Stop talking about stuff you don't understand, champ. You have no idea what "Darwin's theory" is and no idea how explicable it is or isn't. Why are you people SO comfortable ly1ng when you're supposed to be these super moral Christians?

That’s the right attitude. Rare and precious. Dig in and tell us what comes out!

My eyes were opened to the depths of dishonesty that these "philosophers" will sink to rather than consult actual reputable scientists.

there is no conductor, that just your human fallacy looking for patterns and explanations that you’re capable of comprehending it exists, and therefore it is. What works, works. What reproduces, reproduces, and what doesn’t, doesnt. And pure happenstance is what causes this to occur. that’s the basis for evolution and what simple minded people can’t grasp, since they lack the ability to conceive the enormous timespan covering this process and the idea that something complex doesn’t require intelligent design just many small changes over millions of years

That's a fallacy called "begging the question." No one might the conductor be. Maybe you should look up some really basic science about the evolution of the cell. What if you tried that? Tried actually learning the tiniest bit about the thing you're trying to talk about before pretending you can talk about it.

@@babyjiren9676 What about the man in the video talking about irreducibly complex components to the cell?

@@csar07. The man is simply just wrong. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked.

Live your use of musical analogy.

Aha! You get it exactly and explain it well!😊 I like the Grandparent Paradox. When your parents had you, there was a 50% chance you’d be a boy, and a 50% chance you’d be a girl. If you look back a generation, there’s a 50% chance your father’s parents would have a boy, and 50% chance mom’s parents would have a girl. That’s 50% times 50% times 50% or one in eight. Go back one more generation, and the odds of your existence are only around 1% looking bad for you, right? We’re just getting started. One more? Great-grandparents, whom you might have met, only gave you about a 0.001% chance, nearly one in a million. One more? Gets you to 10 ^ -10, in the range of picking one star out of a galaxy. That’s only four generations! Next one is 10 ^ -19 chance that you exist. Pretty unlikely, no? Are you SURE you exist? Six generations. Still not back to the Revolutionary War. The odds you exist are 10 ^ -38. It’s hard to make a comparison to describe these odds. The number of stars in the universe is only 10 ^ 24, a big number, but the odds against you existing are about a trillion times worse than picking one star in the universe. Don’t worry, don’t pinch yourself. You are really here. When you do retroactive odds, you make a bad assumption. So when someone starts waving numbers like 10 ^ -300 in your face, tell them they don’t exist.

Thanks bro!

You'd do yourself a greater service watching a free bio course on RU-vid

So why did god create viruses, flesh eating bacteria, parasites etc?

People are paying this Duffer for feeding them nonsense from long exposed frauds ?!. The world we live in

So the god of the gaps is fraud, but the time of the gaps and the Darwin of the gaps is science and valid?

Thank you. It's a terrible example and yet so many buy into it. In fact when reduced in complexity it serves as a counter argument.

exactly. most yt reactors make non sense commenting/interruption

Lol Yes, if you like bullsh*t religious propaganda masquerading as pseudoscientific lies, lies that have been ENDLESSLY debunked hundreds of times over, including Behe being humiliated in court, under oath, read his embarrassing book.

I'm not super educated or smart but I don't think it would be hard to make refutations considering the nature of everything. Lol. Old ass books from trailblazers being picked apart for discrepancies that modern intelligence and logic can negate. We could be here for a long time.

A major point behind Darwin's Black box is that macro-evolution cannot occur with many very small steps (random mutation) because of irreducible complexity (example: a mouse trap isn't a mouse trap if any of its pieces are missing). This means that many components must be in place at the same time or else the system doesn't work. Natural selection follows the logic of many mutations over a long period of time because bad mutations don't help survival (often causing death), therefore being refuted by every system with irreducible complexity. Darwin himself said that if evolution by many small steps over long periods of time were shown to not work then his theory would fail, but of course everyone still clings to it because they don't have an alternate without confronting the obvious. Just one of many reasons why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. @@Michael_X313

Michael Behe is a proponent of pseudoscience, which is probably very profitable.

And then read the devasting debunking and rebuttals by scientists who are actually working in the field.

Praise the Lord

Love that quote!

Nope. You have no knowledge of god. God is not real and you have nothing but mythology.

@walkergarya Fair enough. Maybe your right.

As a non believer myself, a god based explanation isn't an explanation because I don't believe in any gods as there isn't enough evidence to suggest that any exist. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution so the question for non believers is how could evolution have produced eyes. That question has been answered many times over by evolutionary biologists. That's why discussions like the ones in the video look a bit silly to those that have an evidence based approach to understanding the world we live in rather than a theologically based approach.

@@walkergarya I agree. I am actually still open to a possibility that some kind of higher being or beings exist - maybe a creator or designer. I'm open-minded, reasonable, logical, etc. and I seek answers. I look to math and physics for answers. One thing I know, though, is that 99.9% of Christians I've talked with (and I've talked at length with 1000s) are clueless. Many claim to believe the Bible but don't even know what books are in it and have never read it. They go to churches and don't even know what the churches teach (because most churches don't teach). They know little or nothing of real science. Everybody I work with and almost everybody I know claim to be Christian. Their cluelessness infuriates me.

@@billsmith7673 I've said earlier in this series of replies that I don't personally believe in a creator/god/etc. It is good that you are seeking answers etc. One thing I would ask you to think about, if you reach a different conclusion to the scientific community and conclude that there actually is a designer......can you identify any evidence at all that the designer is still alive. That is, I have some sympathy (though I still disagree) with the argument that there might have been a designer that brought the universe into being, but there is nothing to suggest that such a designer survived that process. Concluding that there is a designer doesn't mean that it's rational to believe in the god of the bible (or the gods of any other religion for that matter).

But not true, and can easily be destroyed with knowledge. Just out of interest then if evolution is not a thing and everything was build by the magic pixie why did it create organisms that just do humans harm like viruses. If everything is created so perfectly by the invisible magic pixie what is cancer isp

Is cancer if it is not a cell evolving and involving incorrectly did pixie make a mistake?

No. The bacteria flagellum IC theory was completely debunked. There are research papers on the subject. Read them yourself.

@@MarkRichardson-wu6oq I wont....maybe if you ask nicely 😜

@holydissolution85 You should. God could be part of the process. Many Christians accept the theory of evolution and also believe a god is behind it all.

@@MarkRichardson-wu6oq What do I type to search for it in my search engine ? The particular research papers ? Thank you

@@holydissolution85 In addition to my other comment, an example of the confirmation bias trap can be found in the following excerpt from the article: "Although several scenarios have been posited to explain how this organelle might have been originated (13), the actual series of evolutionary events that have given rise to the flagellum, as might be inferred from the relationships of all genes that contribute to the formation and expression of this organelle across taxa, has never been accomplished." In science, the statement "...has never been accomplished" would NEVER be a stopping point. It is ALWAYS an open invitation for further investigation to increase the breadth of knowledge and understanding. Please remember that as you investigate.