Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it. All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It didn't matter. He is believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!
I see what you did there 😜 Through the years, I've always chuckled when hearing the old "fsm" or "sky Daddy", and someone finally rightly used it AGAINST the atheists😂
@@jockyoung4491 how it began is obviously 10 times more important than evolution. I see why some evolutionists try to avoid it, because it points so strongly to God, and that then topples evolution, because of what God said he did in the Bible - created each kind of creature, perfect from the start.
@@jockyoung4491 no, the God of the Bible makes evolution impossible. You apparently didn't finish reading my previous reply - the Bible said that he created all the kinds of creatures, perfect from the start. Can you explain what you mean? Does that not contradict evolution?
What is life? Is a virus alive? Multiplying is essential for life. Is RNA essential for life? Is a computer virus alive? Is evolution essential for life? Life can be simple if you know what life is
These videos are such a blessing. My mom is an atheist but loves watching scientific videos like this. Trying to open her heart to the truth of the Lord. Please pray for us!
The heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9) and blinds us to the truth. I pray the Holy Spirit will hound her until she listens. It really boils down to giving up one's self-will. Without self-will, there can be no love, and that is what god wants from us the most. We were created out of and for a loving relationship.
The message of Jesus was ,repent your sins look after the poor the weak, the hungry and the forgotten, sell your possessions to help your fellow man because the kingdom of God is near. If Jesus was here would he be a Christian? Good evidence? watch a moonlanding or flat earth video, and you will be convinced, so much "real" and compelling evidence, yet here we are, with rovers still on the moon, rock samples and a round planet orbiting a sun, and your explanation is a sky God, creating beings so he can torture 90% of them for eternity, because 1 man and 1 woman disobeyed him.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 You are imagining that the cells are 4.2 billion years old. My God has power over science, but you are conflating science with evolutionism.
What would I ask God? Why did you chose to hide amongst so many other Gods? Why did you allow for so much evil? Why didn't you help write a holy book that didn't conflict with reality (modern science)? Why did you allow your followers to go so far astray in their claims of speaking for you without you intervening?
@@blaster-zy7xxyour asking questions to the God you are an atheist to. Shouldn’t you be asking your own goddesses-Lady Luck and Mother Nature why they are so messed up?
I appreciate the gifts that God has given some people [not me] to be able to rattle off an abundance of technical and historical information without notes in a coherent manner, yet still come across like a neighbor talking to you. Yet another well done presentation.
The quote is: "Religion is the opium of the masses." And it still is. What is with theists who conflate socialism with evolution? They have nothing to do with one another.
I believe that Darwin would choose to believe what he did 150 years ago. Once, you choose the path he took, you never lack arguments to stress your point.
Darwin would not lack evidence to support his idea today. Today the evidence fills universities and natural history museums around the globe. The problem is that theists now are on the losing side of evidence for their superstitious and anachronistic ideas of our origins.
That is right, I come to that realise after refuting arguments for evolution, that many people have just made their minds up and don't care what evidence is brought forth. People who genuinely seek the truth will find it on their own.
That the only known way proteins are made is by a molecular machine made of 40-80 proteins and 4 rRNA's that provide the code for the specific arrangement of only 20 particular of over 500 kinds of amino acids.
@@globalcoupledances So what is being transferred from DNA by tRNA>mRNA>rRNA for the particular and specifically sequenced amino acids to be assembled, defining a particular proteins function and folding into it's 3D shape? Ever heard of protein coding genes?
@@Vernon-Chitlen I see you are confused by all those biochemical terminology. I don't know where to begin. I remember that Professor Dave Explains has a biochemistry playlist. I can also advise the Amoeba Sisters
@@Vernon-Chitlen Very short answer: RNA-polymerase makes a copy mRNA (m = messenger). Ribosome scans the mRNA for the *start* codon. If not found then that mRNA is discarded
male and female are so differant that they would have to evolved separatly! 2 evolutions? evolution is man's fantisy. God bless, matthew6:33, proverbs 3:5
Incorrect. Males and females need each other in order to pass on their genes. The only way for mammals to survive is sexual reproduction which mixed male and female genes together.
What about sexual reproduction without gender? Like fungi, fern, paramaecium. Have you heard from Bill Nye why sexual reprduction had been selected by nature?
Yes, of course he would. Because it would mean that Darwin would also be educated in modern biology, none of which contradicts evolution. Modern evolutionary theory isn't "Darwinist" - Darwin got the basic concepts right, but there was much he did not know. This is like asking if Galileo would still be a heliocentrist if he knew about the James Webb Telescope.
Let's say something like that was true. If the cells were actually filled with homogenous protoplasm but still functioned as a cell does now...ie with no internal chemistry but from the outside the cell did everything a cell does now, would that make you more or less inclined to think it evolved naturally?
@@rizdekd3912 No. I already knew God and understood, "The Bible is true. If it looks like it might not be, then we must not understand what we are looking at."
@@Torby4096 "No. I already knew God and understood, 'The Bible is true. If it looks like it might not be, then we must not understand what we are looking at.'" So the complexity of the cell is irrelevant?
@@avishevin1976 Darwin quote: “Which is more likely, that pain and evil are the result of an all-powerful and good God, or the product of uncaring natural forces? The presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.” So religious like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins.
@@jockyoung4491 An individual totally ignorant of the prebiotic chemistry required for life. Who's speculations encouraged Karl Marx, and Margaret Sanger.
to say Darwin's theory is totally wring becasue he didn't know what we know today is like saying Copernicus was wrong about the earth going around the sun because general relativity proved that the forces of nature are relative.
The Balls to claim "Darwinists" claim life should be simple 😂 Religions claim simple creation from nothing by a god. Thats simple. And in reality simplicity is the Hallmark of design.
The parent of the first human was nonhuman. Children of that first human are always human. The question is if something like molar pregnancy counts as human
@@globalcoupledances the change is very gradual. It's like saying you can't take a step in Maine and wind up in California. It's impossible. But if you put together enough steps, you can do it. That's the difference.
I love the parallelism of fractal patterns with the complexity of creation. Also, if this interests you, you MUST READ Chapter 17 of C.S. Lewis' book, "Perelandra." "There seems no plan because all is plan."
Darwinian Evolution helped to fill the vacuum of knowledge. New information has refined and extended Darwin's theory, but the core principles of evolution through natural selection and common descent remain well-supported by scientific evidence.
Wow you missed the whole enchilada here. They just shot holes in the theory of Evolution. And you prove God by fulfilling his prophecy of being willingly ignorant and deceived by Satan.
Darwin was wrong, Mendel was correct. The latter understood limited changes and was a creationist. Devoted evolutionist needs to start from ground zero and ask 'how did we get here', 'what assumptions were believed that became the foundations that evolution was built upon and are they firm foundations'. Cheers, ex-atheist and former believer in materialistic evolution.
If God created DNA, it appears it was created specifically so it could support evolution. Why else would God create such a complicated and tenuous mechanism...one fraught with problems (mutations, mistakes, folding, duplication) when replicating...if not to support evolution? Why would an omnipotent God make the mechanism to pass on life so fragile and complicated when he could have made it simple and invulnerable to corruption?
@@rizdekd3912 The complexity of DNA is what allows for speciation of a kind which is handy after the fall and even more so in a post flood environment. This also translates into specialised breeding that we see in livestock and dogs. Perhaps if DNA was too simple, life may not have been able to adapt to the post flood world, at least not in the diversity we have before us. In the end, I leave it to The Creator. It's His design and what do I peeny brains comprehend as of we know better and can create stuff from ex-nihlo.
@rizdekd3912 God is omniscient, aka, all knowing. IMO, God knew full well the fall and sin would happen, so He made sure life was preprogrammed with enough genetic information that it could have protections against debilitating mutations, and for the variety of environmental and social pressures. Think how from only a few species of wolves we got all manner of dog species. That's because the information to make new forms was already present. Oh, and for God knowing, but doing it anyway? We could only love God as He loves us, only by willfully choosing so. But that opens up the freedom to reject Him too. Through that rebellion, we have sin and all the degradation it has caused. If we had no free will, we'd be nothing more than servile golems. Perfect, but not free in any way.
One of the oldest and worst arguments for god is : "This is complex, therefore my favorite flavor of God must be true." Same argument for Zeus when the ancient Greeks saw lightning.
@@lostat400 You under educated theists crack me up. It almost comical if it wasn't so sad. Darwinism doesn't make any claims about the origins of the universe, the origins of life or about God. The only claim that evolution makes is that life changes over time due to variation and natural selection. That's it! It literally has nothing to do with "nothing". Darwinism starts AFTER the universe formed, after the sun formed, after the earth was formed, and even AFTER life came into existence. Darwinism only takes effect AFTER life already exists and is reproducing. There is no "nothing" about this.
Rejection of the Trinity is not evidence of a corrupted mind. If Darwin’s family was Unitarian that just means they believed what is explicitly stated in 1 Cor. 8:6 “But for us, There is one God, the Father, by whom all things were created, and for whom we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created, and through whom we live”. The fact is, if your church does not affirm a belief in “one God the Father” then you’re technically not a Christian church.
@@graemeross6970 No, the trinity was not formed in the second century. It was gradually formed over several centuries. Some argue it wasn’t completely formed until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE/AD in which the hypostatic union was adopted. My point is even if you can trace the formulation of Trinity doctrine earlier than the 5th century it still contradicts the earliest creedal statements Christians are required to believe. So if you teach, for example, that there is only “one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as opposed to what the apostle Paul elucidated, namely, “one God, the Father” then you have gone beyond what is written and fallen under a curse. You have departed and ostracized yourself from “the Way” of the first Christian church. If you can’t affirm everything Paul says in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 without adding to it or redefining the words used then you need to stop calling yourself Christians and identify as Trinitarians because the two are mutually exclusive terms. You can’t be one and be the other. Sorry…
All the wars and atrocities that were perpetrated by “Christians” since Christianity became the state religion of Rome have been perpetuated by Trinitarians. The idea that actual Christians, even of the same denomination, would kill each other in the service of an earthly ruler or government is absurd. Remember Jesus said his true followers would be a little flock and would be no part of the World. A true sign of Christianity is the love they have for one another and even their enemies. Most of the men slaughtered in Europe during WW1 were devout Christians by today’s standards. They were fighting for their respective economic elites who also believed they were Christians. Satan’s a wily Devil.😈☮️✌️
"Invented in a vacuum of knowledge" He literally collected evidence for decades from all over the world travelled all over the world and collaborated with whomever he could. Do you know what is a vacuum of knowledge? A belief system which excludes all evidence that is not contained in ancient book of dubious sources and editing.
Everything being said here is one huge fallacy, Their's no such a thing as complex, but your interpretation of what complex is, basically what your mind can't comprehend. So, yuh life is basically so simple that natural selection alone explains it.
Thanks for doing this. Could you do another one that has more concrete descriptions of the complexity of life so that we can use that to help nonbelievers see. It seemed you were going that way but then spent tmost of time on debunking evolution. Thanks again!
“Debunking evolution” as if it is a fringe science. Every accredited university will teach you evolution is true and you can understand it more if you took biology
If Darwin was alive today not only would he know for sure evolution was true but he'd be disgusted by how openly dishonest a large fraction of Chrstianity is over his theory.
The only way one can *know* evolution was true, is if one could demonstrate that an algae can descend and its lineage yield a mouse, and a fish and an orchid.
The title is odd to say the least. It's essentially asking if Darwin knew this (whatever 'this' is) would he still be Darwin? That's the problem and fallacy of referring to speciation by natural selection as Darwinism. If Darwin had come up with a different theory, it would still be Darwinism if we're into naming theories after the person who initially presented them. So we'd be calling the theory of general relativity Einsteinism and the theory of special relativity Einsteinism. Oh, and we'd be calling taxonomy Linnaeusism and germ theory Pasteurism.
Evolutionists love carts. They dream of carts, can't imagine the world without carts. But they know nothing about horses. Makes it really hard to understand why there'd be such a thing as a cart.
“The Origin of Species” allows us some insight into how Darwin’s mind worked. Based on that I think he would be thrilled by the advances in classification in zoology with so many new existing species described, and especially the numerous new finds of fossils beyond his wildest dreams. I think he would travel to China to look at dinosaur fossils. Given that “The Origin of Species” does not contain any speculation about the origin of life, I think Darwin would still not work in that area and leave it to others, especially people who know more chemistry. He would not be impressed by our findings about possible “abiogenis” beyond the admission that it could have been that way. Darwin fully acknowledged that he could not explain the origin of life. In a letter he pointed out that Sir Isaac Newton could not explain the origin of gravity, either.
Newton believed in God and knew the law came from God. Darwin rejects God. Abiogenesis was disproves by Louis pasture I believe. Yet they refuse to accept this truth like they refuse to accept the truth of God our Creator
@@ianmonk6211 Louis Pasteur found out many things about microorganisms, but he did not disprove abiogenesis. He only proved that when mold forms on our food that's not a case of abiogenesis as many believed at the time, but that there is something in the air that carries the life - spores as we now know. It must have happened at least once, though, billions of years ago, as earth was without life at first, but it now has life.
@@erikt1713 so prove to me there was no life in earth at first? Where's your evidence? And you're wrong about Pasteur. AI Overview +15 Yes, Louis Pasteur is widely credited with definitively disproving the theory of spontaneous generation through his famous "swan-neck flask" experiment, which demonstrated that life only comes from pre-existing life and not from non-living matter.
@@erikt1713 actually if you Google it His swan neck flask experiment did just that . I thought I had posted this to you with a link a few days ago. I'm wondering if it got deleted. But you're wrong 100%
You have to be completely blind not to understand evolution. it was already obvious enough in darwin time with darwin knowledge and mean, everything we have learn after that confirm it, the only reason why someone would dispute evolution is because it clash with and contradict the scriptures. No one came up with a better suited theory , and evolution isn't simple, it took 3.5 billion years to make us who we are, a number so mindnumingly big, it is impossible for a mere mortal to understand , yet it perfectly explain why we feel so adapted to this world, not because it was designed for us but because we evolve to it.
If you look at the fossil record it's pretty obvious that huge changes did not happen at once like the fly with legs instead of antennae, that fly certainly died without reproducing.
Darwin had a hard time being a darwinist in his own day. If you read Origin of the Species, his memoirs and autobiography, he was quite open about his skeptecosm of his own theories. Darwin was funded by people who wanted a critical argument against the Gospel, and he knew it. Darwin concluded that the closer you look, the more the evidence pointed to intelligent design.
X-< This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
Including the claim, non living matter became living without design or purpose? And nobody can make the elements form a complete set of all 20 specific amino acids?
@@Vernon-Chitlen I believe the universe is God's evolution machine and reincarnation and karma are natural processes of evolution, our evolution is the seed growing into the tree and karma is the signal
Don't miss the free access to the 2009 Darwin movie they offer in the notes. It's a great movie, and worth it just to not recognize Dr. Carter... before the beard.
Creationism's claim is, that everything was created. Then this appeal to complexity makes no sense, because it proposes 'complex therefore created'. But you already claimed, that everything was created, not only complex items. Unless you think, each and every thing is complex, which would make you a confused person. First, think your argument through before turning it into a youtube video.
You need the contrast between canvas and painting even though you create both. Proteins are just nanorobotic machines. It's the holy grail of SETI, just here at home.
@@DepletedUrbranium When you claim, that simple things are also created, then your line of argumentation, that creation follows from being complex is not an argument.
@@MrLogo73 That's not my argument. I disagree with his method. I've talked to him at length and so I know he could have easily espoused his position more clearly, but he just depended on his audience being more intellectual than critical. You can't see what he's talking about unless you learn how these proteins interact with each other, epistatically and pleiotropically, along with their mechanical nature. In this case, it's mostly not your fault, it's his fault, because of what he knows but failed to communicate. Most of his other interviews are better, but this one he messed up because he expected too much intelligence from his audience. I've talked to him at length about his knowledge on this topic, and he did not represent it well here because he expected lay people to understand that protein networks are highly integrated but he kept using the word "complex". Your objection is well founded, and I believe he will do better in the future. It's the mechanical nature of these basic protein structures that provides the evidence he's talking about, and he did not articulate that as well as he should have.
@DepletedUrbranium - If you have the opportunity to meet Robert Carter again then ask him why he made the mistake with his claim that every generation has 60-100 mutations? I have calculated that he knows that is a calculation of human-chimp common ancestry
You are not serious. Darwin himself spoke about complexity of biology and conceded that there might be some more principles of evolution. And you should know that the main characteristic of science is knowledge about premisees and applicability, within limitaion. Of course there are corrupt scientist in our world, so as there are journalists like you who not even try to be fair.
That took a weird turn. Yes to intelligent design, but I wouldn’t narrow it down to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism - maybe an investigation of consciousness.
Biological complexity would shock Darwin? No doubt, he'd also be shocked by its simplicity -- just a few basic abundant chemicals ... carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur ... as building blocks for every kind of life.
Evolution is directly observed in real life, new genus and species have evolved under direct observation in your own lifetime. Yes, Darwin would still accept evolution.
We can always hope that Darwin would come to find salvation but I think Darwin was more interested in "sticking it to the church." He was searching but he was searching in all the wrong places. I would hope thag he would find Christ and believe Gods word but it's hard to say. Charles had his shot in life. Hopefully he had a death bed confession and repented for his life. 42:00 ok, maybe not
Darwin had no interest in "stickign it to the church". Why would he? Believers create this false narrativre where scientists are pursuing some sort of vendetta against their religion and make up bizarre conspiracy theories. Darwin simply gathered evidence and then came up with an explanation for it.
There is a great vacuum in the universe that is not filled with virtual particles. It is filled with the minds and prejudices of self-proclaimed believers.
Darwin was a philosopher. Hmm, isn't most religion, at its core, a philosophy (Budisim for instance)? So evolution is an alternative religion concocted to challenge, primarily, the Holy Bible, a historical narrative. Evolution is a religion that, requires, (not an option) death and dying BTW. Judeo-Christianiy is an exception in that it contains a historical narrative and is about a relationship with God, our creator, for eternity. Evolutionists would say religion isn't science. But they are the ones who made it that way by turning their religion into pseudo-science. Inconsistent at best!
I always thought it was hilarious that theists attempt to insult science by calling it a “religion”. So theists must suspect their worldview is comically wrong.
No. But you do you. Philosophy is just a point of view. Science is about testability. Religion does not care about the ability to test. I'm not even anti religion.
Yup. I skipped the brainwashing class. I don't need a PhD to see the just-so stories make no sense. Evolution takes a far bigger miracle than intelligent creation. I was once one of you and read everything I could get my hands on, but the, how, was always missing from the stories Evo's told. just believe me. Well, that's not good enough for me.
Neither I nor Robert Carter are not calling science religion. We love science and would never insult it, but The theory of Evolution is not science! It is in fact an alternative story of beginnings in place of the bible and neither can be observed or repeated, This is the the definition of science (look it up). Evolution is nothing more than an alternative history of our beginnings from men who were angry with God. Science is done in the here and now and cannot prove history. The argument is about differing versions of historical accounts. In my view, evolution doesn't stand the test. We see what we want to see. I saw the observable evidence better fit the bible narrative. I don't see landforms being created today like those of the past. All the missing links are still missing from the fossil record, and how do you get a fossil, anyway. Not the way Evo's explain it. And these are just a couple of many examples. I don't think you understand the issue, no matter how well educated?
Hi King Solomon was WAY ahead of Darwin! He said ‘THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN’ Wise words when you realise that no one has ever measured any curvature on the earth’s surface, so we really are UNDER heaven both physically and spiritually!
Information is somehow just usable content ... H²O is just like that ... the result is using the unique structure of it ... repeatedly ... in an unimaginable amount of parallel and in time following processes ... so the result may then somehow a stable molecule ... containing more content/information ... even this parallel and in time repeatedly ... so there starts a sequence of information ... becoming more complex. Of course this is not random and caused by laws of physic and chemistry ... the combination of molecules may be random ... but the result is following this laws. The amount of atoms/molecules and billions of years made it to humans. The law or rules of physics and chemistry ... here is a fundamental question left for science.
The instructions for life is within our dna or spirit. What would God do to preserve his work? He would "create a "book" to keep the faith". The instructions for life is within us.
I dunno. Used to be a believer. The more I learned, the more naturalism made sense. Under creationism, there's no reason whatsoever for naturalistic explanations to be successful at all -- God simply does not have to abide by naturalistic laws. But naturalistic explanations are monstrously successful, down to the highest possible degree of scientific precision / accuracy. This cannot be coincidence, but has to be God's intention. So either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator.
Darwin had two concerns that went against his theory: the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of the eye. To him the cell was a black box. He believe the first was a sampling issue and would evaporate with time. It has not. He believed there was not sufficient time for evolution of the mollusc, insect and chordate eye. Today we understand how complex is any cell. Darwin would not hold the same view as he did.
So-called "simple" life would have no DNA. Is there even a conception of a "simple" cell without DNA could have been like? Before Watson and Crick how did they think of "simple" origin of life? Why would proto-life become extinct? If its not actually living as we know life, but can reproduce - the proto-cell seems unkillable to me.
Life would quickly consume proto-life. Nowadays you cannot leave a piece of an apple outside in the sun without bacteria starting to consume it and fungi settling on it. In the primordial ocean, more complex molecules would have had a far greater chance to stay complex as they were not gobbled up by something. There is a general tendency of decay, but by far not as fierce as our current micro-organisms make it.
Darwin came to a conclusion based on "science of the gaps". Our existence is a marvel according to the extent of our knowledge. The more we learn, the more wondrous God is shown to be.
to answer the question in the title of this video: it depends on the extent of his dishonesty and his determination to find an imagined scientific basis for atheism. let us not think that he would necessarily have had the integrity to admit defeat and abandon his theory when faced with the evidence we have. after all scripture makes it clear that he had no excuse for his unbelief even back then as there was SUFFICIENT information even then too many apologist types seem to assume an innate honesty on the part of everyone whereby they would indeed by persuaded by evidence
Well if they is a god I certainly hope it is a deistic one. To think a being made this nightmare on purpose, or allowed it in any way, is horrifying. Why anyone would want to believe a god that loves people stands and watches children get raped, millions of times, it so disgusting and appalling there are no words for it.
The point for Darwin and his relatives appears to have been to cast doubt on the Biblical narrative for the ignorant.... so it is likely that he would either stick to his ideas or adapt later ones, as long as it persuaded people to not believe the Bible.
The entire biological world is greatly complex. Charles Darwin makes it very simplified. Even the great creator of the universe is amazed to believe that Charles Darwin makes it from a primordial soup magically.
(;;) Artifacts of a swastika is flobby with stazzle and a jumble that tumbled. That is a skeleton, human heart, signature, internal combustion engine, animation of the big bang and a wave. That unify the universe you can't do with math. A swastika is the simplest rendering possible for those artifacts and needs to be saved. ( ´-ω-)
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
@epicofgilgamesh9964 Well, if the Tower of Babel incident did happen, then maybe those stories are based on truth. As they split, they took truths they knew to be true and over time changed to match their own culture. It seems that a lot of cultures have similar arching themes. Kinda like how Thor, Zues, Ba'al, and Marduk use lighting as their weapons and are also sons are a higher god. If you read the Baal cycle, some of the characters described have strong similarities with Hindu and Greek gods. Perhaps instead of looking at their "myths" as solely made up and false, we may need to see that there are some truths in there that have been confused. I mean, it is named the Tower of Babel(Confusion).
Pop! Darwin have done his best! According to His own understanding! Likewise love with patience towards Darwin! Pop it's ok to correct one another. Without being offended in front! Together! Can bring forth clarity, coherence, adequacy, evidence....concerning creation and all thy shared "i" AM!
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So we wonder why Darwin came up with his ideas. Lots he didn't know. But what about someone like Dawkins who knows all this stuff. How can he think what he thinks?
He doesn't. He bluffed predicting phylogenies of gene trees and got that largely wrong. He guessed the retina was wired backwards but didn't understand the function of choroid and Mueller cells or the requirements of the system. He thinks fitness landscapes have gradual slopes of ever increasing fitness and peaks are easily traversable and was proven wrong. His "methinks it is like a weasel" program shows he doesn't understand epistatic and pleiotropic interactions in genes. If he thinks he can improve even one of the 20,000 genes or the 100,000 spliced proteins from them, then let's see him get to it.
