No scientist calls themselves an evolutionist! A scientist would call it an evolutionary biologist! This guy thinks cognitive dissonance is a superpower.
Really? All atheists are biologists? Not all biologists are evolutionary biologists. There are zoologists, botanists, geneticists, cytologists, and many others.
@@TexasHoosier3118 Try reading what I wrote. This video claims he was an "evolutionist" before he became a believer. My comment was addressing that, a scientist wouldn't call themselves an "evolutionist", they would use the term "evolutionary biologist". Get it now?
TexasHoosier3118, I wouldn't believe in evolution or cosmology if that was what it was described as, either. Fortunately for everyone, your descriptions are tomfoolery.
@@TexasHoosier3118NO. No one says that anywhere. Except bible believing god bothering muppets in their bible. It is thought within the scientific community that the universe, or specifically the "singularity" from which our universe formed after it expanded at the wrongly titled "Big Bang " has always existed, which then of course negates the need for a "creator ". So bye bye "god". Lol. And yes, a fully functioning cell forms from abiogenesis. Already shown to be not only possible, but very likely. In fact 100% likely, as we are part of it. Cheers.
I understand you're no longer an "evolutionist" because you found a god. Are you still a "gravitationalist"? You know The scientific theory of gravity right? That's "just a scientific theory" that explains why objects with mass are attracted to larger objects with mass.
@@TexasHoosier3118 A rock doesn't technically fall. A rock is attracted to something with a larget mass than the rock has which happens to be the earth. Gravity makes it seem like the rock is falling rather than being attracted to something with a larger mass. When we jump in the air we're not falling back to the earth, we're attracted to the earth thanks to gravity.
He doesn't say a thing about why he thinks evolution is wrong, apart from the fact that it might be inconsistent with his Christian faith. He isn't even clear about that.
This is a clip from the full episode, every thought and comment he made over an hour episode could not be included. But you're more than welcome to watch the full thing 😄
True science considers a question and tries to disprove it because you cannot absolutely prove a positive. You can disprove it and so repeated failures to disprove the question reinforce your positive hypothesis. That’s how true science works. That’s elementary school science curriculum basics. With evolutionary study, the positive hypothesis is simply assumed to be true and evidence, or what can be construed as evidence is amassed in support of that hypothesis. Any evidence that refutes the hypothesis is summarily dismissed as erroneous or simply ignored. No other hypotheses are considered to explain difficult evidence, ever. Evolutionary hypothesizing is not a true science even by an elementary school definition. There are a large number of those uncomfortable questions for evolutionary thinking: the gradual evolution of a species into another species is belied by the radical change in speciation at the turns of the various periods in the billions of years postulation, the more difficult an evolutionary step is theorized to be, the longer it is theorized to have taken and the origin date just gets pushed back a little further and many more very hard questions. Evolutionary theory is not science.
@@dimbulb23 in the immortal words of Science Officer Spock, if all of the logical answers are proven to be false, only the illogical answers remain. I, personally am a Christian and believe in the biblical God but that wasn’t my point. My comment was merely that evolutionary theorizing is definitely not science and so is as much based on blind faith in the god of chance as my faith in the God of the Bible.
